MARKET POSITION ANALYSIS
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac,
Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Conducted by
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908 735-6336 • 908 735-4751 facsimile
www.ZVA.cc • info@ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
S TUDY C ONTENTS
Market Position Analysis
1
Introduction
1
Market Potential
Where will the potential market for housing in the City of Pontiac
move from?
The Draw Areas
3
Market Potential for Downtown Pontiac
Where will the potential market for housing in Downtown Pontiac
move from?
How many households are likely to move to Downtown Pontiac?
5
Table 1: Potential Housing Market
Target Market Analysis
Who is the potential market?
The Target Markets
Table 2: Downtown Residential Mix By Household Type
Downtown Market-Rate Rent and Price Ranges
What is the market currently able to pay?
Rent and Price Ranges
How fast will the units lease or sell?
Market Capture
4
4
5
6
10
11
11
11
15
18
18
18
19
19
Table 3: Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Table 4: Summary Of Selected For-Sale Multi-Family And Attached
Properties Currently Marketing Units
Table 5: Optimum Market Position
21
Rental Distribution
32
Table 6: Annual Market Capture: Target Groups For Multi-Family For-Rent
33
For-Sale Distribution
34
Table 7: Annual Market Capture: Target Groups For Multi-Family For-Sale
Table 8: Annual Market Capture: Target Groups For Single-Family
Attached For-Sale
35
Downtown Housing Types
Courtyard Apartment Building
Loft Apartment Building
Mansion Apartment Building
Townhouse/Rowhouse
29
31
37
38
38
38
39
39
MARKET POSITION ANALYSIS
Page ii
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Unit, Property and Downtown Amenities
In-Unit Amenities
Property Amenities
Downtown Amenities
40
40
41
42
Methodology
44
Assumptions and Limitations
Rights and Study Ownership
54
55
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908 735-6336 • 908 735-4751 facsimile
www.ZVA.cc • info@ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
MA RKET POS I T I ON AN A LYS I S
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to identify the depth and breadth of the market for newly-introduced
market-rate housing units—created both through adaptive re-use of existing non-residential
buildings as well as through new construction—to be leased or sold in Downtown Pontiac. For the
purposes of this study, Downtown Pontiac comprises the area within the Woodward Avenue
“Loop,” encompassing the Central Business District, the POH Medical Center, and the Phoenix
Center, as well as numerous other businesses, government offices, churches, restaurants and galleries.
The entirety of the Pontiac Commercial Historic District, a Pontiac designated historic district,
also falls within the Downtown Pontiac study area.
The extent and characteristics of the potential market for Downtown housing units were identified
using Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ proprietary target market methodology. This methodology
was developed in response to the challenges that are inherent in the application of conventional
supply/demand analysis to urban development and redevelopment. Supply/demand analysis
ignores the potential impact of newly-introduced housing supply on settlement patterns, which can
be substantial when that supply is specifically targeted to match the housing preferences and
economic capabilities of the draw area households.
In contrast to conventional supply/demand analysis, then—which is based on supply-side
dynamics and baseline demographic projections—target market analysis determines the depth
and breadth of the potential market derived from the housing preferences and socio-economic
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 2
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
characteristics of households in the defined draw area. Because it considers not only basic
demographic characteristics, such as income qualification and age, but also less-frequently
analyzed attributes such as mobility rates, lifestyle patterns and household compatibility issues,
the target market methodology is particularly effective in defining a realistic housing potential
for urban development and redevelopment.
In brief, using the target market methodology, Zimmerman/Volk Associates determined:
•
Where the potential renters and buyers for new housing units in Downtown Pontiac
are likely to move from (the draw areas);
•
Who currently lives in the draw areas and what they are like (the target markets);
•
How many have the potential to move to Downtown Pontiac if appropriate housing
units were to be made available (depth and breadth of the market);
•
What their housing preferences are in aggregate (rental or ownership, multi-family
or single-family);
•
What their alternatives are (new construction or existing rental housing stock in the
market area);
•
What they will pay to live in Downtown Pontiac (market-rate rents and prices); and
•
How quickly they will rent or purchase the new units (market capture/absorption
forecasts).
The target market methodology is described in detail in the M ETHODOLOGY section at the end
of this study.
N OTE : Tables 1 through 7, included in this document, contain summaries of the market potential
and optimum market position for new market-rate housing units created through adaptive re-use o f
existing buildings and/or new construction within Downtown Pontiac. Tables 8 through 10, also
included in this document, outline the relevant supply-side context. The appendix tables, provided
in a separate document, contain migration and target market data covering the appropriate draw
areas for the city and for the Downtown.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 3
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
M ARKET P OTENTIAL
American households, more than any other nation’s, have always been extraordinarily mobile. In
2005, although varying by region, an average of 17 percent of American households moved from
one dwelling unit to another. Household mobility is higher in urban areas; a higher percentage of
renters move than owners; and a higher percentage of younger households move than older
households.
Analysis of migration, mobility and geo-demographic characteristics of households currently
living within defined draw areas is therefore integral to the determination of the depth and
breadth of the potential market for market-rate housing units within Downtown Pontiac.
Oakland County migration and mobility patterns from 2000 through 2004—the latest data
available from the Internal Revenue Service—show that the number of households moving into the
county has fallen from approximately 30,150 households in 2000 to just over 26,500 households in
2004. Just under half of the county’s in-migration is from adjacent or nearby counties—households
moving to Oakland County from Wayne and Macomb Counties.
Over the same period, the number of households moving out of the county also fell, from just over
32,200 households in 2000 to just under 30,000 households in 2004. However, Oakland County’s
annual household loss due to net out-migration has risen from 2,055 households in 2000 to nearly
3,500 households in 2004.
Although net migration provides insights into the county’s historic ability to attract or retain
households compared to other locations, it is those households likely to move into the county
(gross in-migration) that represent the county’s external market potential. This study therefore
identifies the depth and breadth of the potential market for new and existing market-rate housing
units within both the City of Pontiac and Downtown Pontiac based on the characteristics of those
households already living in the city as well as those households that are likely to move into the
city if appropriate housing options were to be made available.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 4
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Where will the potential market for housing in the City of Pontiac move from?
—The Draw Areas—
The depth and breadth of the potential market for new and existing market-rate housing units in
the City of Pontiac was determined through migration, mobility and target market analyses of
households currently living within defined draw areas. Based on regional migration analysis, the
draw areas for the City of Pontiac have been delineated as follows:
•
The primary (internal) draw area, covering households currently living within the Pontiac
city limits, as well as those currently living in the balance of Oakland County. Each year,
approximately five percent of the households living in the city have the financial capacities
to rent or purchase new or existing market-rate dwelling units and are likely to move to
another residence within the city; between five and six percent of the households living in
the balance of Oakland County, also with the financial capacities to rent or purchase new or
existing market-rate dwelling units, are likely to move to a residence within the city each
year.
•
The adjacent draw area, covering households with the potential to move to the City of
Pontiac from Wayne and Macomb Counties. Households moving from these two counties
comprise just under half of total Oakland County in-migration.
•
The national draw area, covering households with the potential to move to the City of
Pontiac from all other U.S. counties. Up to 1,000 households, with the financial capacities
to rent or purchase new or existing market-rate dwelling units, are likely to move into the
City of Pontiac from elsewhere in the United States each year; a small additional number
are households moving from outside the United States.
Anecdotal information obtained from real estate brokers, sales persons, leasing agents, and other
knowledgeable sources corresponded to the migration data.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 5
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
As derived from migration, mobility and target market analysis, then, the draw area distribution
of market potential (those households with the potential to move within or to the City of Pontiac
and the financial capacity to rent or purchase market-rate housing units) would be as follows (see
also Appendix One, Table 8):
Market Potential by Draw Area
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
City of Pontiac (Primary Draw Area):
Balance of Oakland County (Primary Draw Area):
Wayne and Macomb Counties (Adjacent Draw Area):
Balance of US (National Draw Area):
20.2%
42.1%
20.2%
17.5%
Total:
100.0%
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
M ARKET POTENTIAL FOR D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
Where will the potential market for housing in Downtown Pontiac move from?
The target market methodology also identifies those households with a preference for living in
downtown neighborhoods. After discounting for those segments of the city’s potential market that
typically choose suburban and/or rural locations, the distribution of draw area market potential
for new market-rate dwelling units in Downtown Pontiac would be as follows (see also Appendix
One, Table 9):
Market Potential by Draw Area
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
City of Pontiac (Primary Draw Area):
Balance of Oakland County (Primary Draw Area):
Wayne and Macomb Counties (Adjacent Draw Area):
Balance of US (National Draw Area):
17.8%
44.7%
19.1%
18.4%
Total:
100.0%
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
The county and national draw areas represent slightly larger proportions of market potential for
new housing in Downtown than for the city as a whole. Conversely, the city itself County and the
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 6
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Wayne/Macomb draw area represent slightly smaller segments of market potential for Downtown
than for the city.
How many households are likely to move to Downtown Pontiac?
Based on the target market analysis, in the year 2006, more than 1,500 younger singles and couples,
empty nesters and retirees, and family-oriented households represent the potential market for new
market-rate housing units within Downtown Pontiac. The housing preferences of these draw area
households—according to tenure (rental or ownership) and broad financial capacity—can be
arrayed as follows (see also Table 1):
Potential Market for New Housing Units
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS
P ERCENT
OF T OTAL
Multi-family for-rent
460
30.3%
Multi-family for-sale
240
15.8%
Single-family attached for-sale
200
13.2%
Low-range single-family detached
150
9.9%
Mid-range single-family detached
280
18.4%
High-range single-family detached
190
12.4%
Total
1,520
100.0%
HOUSING T YPE
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
These 1,520 households comprise 26.7 percent of the approximately 5,700 market-rate households
that represent the potential market for all of the City of Pontiac, a share of the total market that is
consistent with Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ experience in other cities. For example, in recent
analyses, the downtown market was found to represent approximately 23 percent of the city’s
potential market in Birmingham, Alabama, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Atlanta, Georgia; 26
percent in Norfolk, Virginia, Redding, California, and Toledo, Ohio; 30 percent in Detroit and
Grand Rapids, Michigan, Spokane, Washington, and Baltimore, Maryland; 35 percent in
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 7
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Lexington, Kentucky and Buffalo, New York; and 36 percent and 38 percent in Louisville,
Kentucky and New Haven, Connecticut, respectively.
Like Pontiac, many of these cities are in regions where the majority of any increase in the number
of households has typically occurred outside the city limits. In most cases, the introduction of
newly-created, appropriately-positioned housing units within the city limits, particularly in the
downtown, has had an impact on settlement patterns by providing appropriate new housing options
for households that previously had none.
The market potential numbers indicate the depth of the potential market for new housing units
within Downtown Pontiac, not housing need and not projections of household change. These are
the households that are likely to move to the Downtown i f appropriate housing options were to be
made available.
From the perspective of draw area target market propensities and compatibility, and within the
context of the new housing marketplace in the Pontiac market area, the potential market for new
housing units within the Downtown could include the full range of housing types, from rental
multi-family to for-sale single-family detached. However, within a central business district, the
target mix of units should concentrate on higher-density housing types, which support civic and
commercial urban development and redevelopment most efficiently. These include:
•
Rental lofts and apartments (multi-family for-rent);
•
For-sale lofts and apartments (multi-family for-sale); and
•
Townhouses, rowhouses, live-work units (single-family attached for-sale).
The residential re-use of existing non-residential structures is one of the most beneficial downtown
redevelopment types; adaptive re-use creates and enhances a pedestrian-oriented street environment
at a familiar, and often historic, urban scale. In downtown locations, large buildings that contain
more potential adaptive re-use square footage than can be absorbed for housing within a feasible
time frame could be redeveloped with retail and/or office uses augmenting housing.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 8
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
The creation of “loft” dwelling units through adaptive re-use of existing buildings has been
instrumental in the establishment of successful residential neighborhoods in or near the downtowns
of numerous American cities, from Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the first loft apartment
building was successfully introduced and leased in 2002, to Saint Louis, Missouri, where, over the
past four years, more than 900 loft apartments in the Washington Avenue Loft District have been
completed and occupied, are under construction, or are in development. In addition to the major
cities of New York, Boston, San Francisco and Chicago, other cities where loft development has
occurred or is underway include Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Birmingham, Buffalo,
Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Lexington, Louisville, Minneapolis, Richmond, Nashville,
New Orleans, Portland, Roanoke, Saint Paul, Syracuse and Toledo.
The raw space version of a loft, or “hard” loft, is adaptable for a wide range of non-residential
uses, from an art or music studio to a small office, as well as residential living areas. The loft is
not dependent upon building form, other than that it is almost always within a multi-unit
building. (See DOWNTOWN H OUSING TYPES below.)
Although lofts can accommodate work space, live-work units are typically attached buildings,
each with only one principal dwelling unit that includes flexible space that can be used as office,
retail, or studio space, or as an accessory dwelling unit. Live-work units could therefore be
developed through adaptation of a rowhouse or even the combination of two adjacent rowhouses.
The non-residential ground-floor uses could be helpful in establishing a daytime presence in
neighborhoods that are largely residential, thereby adding an element of security.
Live-work units can also be an important tool for revitalization, representing an opportunity for the
small investor: a resident investor can lease the flex space for residential, retail or office use; a nonresident investor can lease both the main residential space or the flex space. Since experience
shows that it is uncommon for retail operators to live above the store, live-work units should meet
appropriate local codes permitting the legal separation of uses in order to maintain investor
flexibility.
• • •
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 9
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Excluding single-family detached units, then, this analysis has determined that in the year 2006,
up to 900 households currently living in the defined draw areas represent the pool of potential
renters/buyers of new market-rate housing units (new construction and/or adaptive re-use of
formerly non-residential structures) within Downtown Pontiac (see again Table 1). As derived
from the tenure and housing preferences of those draw area households, the distribution of housing
types would be as follows:
Annual Market Potential
Market-Rate Higher-Density Housing Units
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSING T YPE
P ERCENT
OF T OTAL
Rental Multi-Family
(lofts/apartments, leaseholder)
460
51.1%
For-Sale Multi-Family
(lofts/apartments, condo/co-op ownership)
240
26.7%
200
22.2%
900
100.0%
For-Sale Single-Family Attached
(townhouses/rowhouses/live-work, fee-simple ownership)
Total
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
Again, these numbers indicate the depth of the potential market for market-rate housing units
within Downtown Pontiac i f appropriate housing options were available.
These households
represent a “lost” opportunity for the city. Without an appropriate range of available housing
options in Downtown Pontiac, these households have either moved elsewhere or have moved less
frequently than their typical mobility rates would indicate.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table 1
Potential Housing Market
Derived From New Unit Purchase And Rental Propensities Of Draw Area Households
With The Potential To Move To The Area In 2006
Downtown Pontiac
The City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Draw Areas
Total Target Market Households
With Potential To Rent/Purchase In
The City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
5,700
Total Target Market Households
With Potential To Rent/Purchase In
Downtown Pontiac
1,520
Potential Housing Market
Multi. . . . . . Family . . . . . .
Single. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Attached . .
Total Households:
{Mix Distribution}:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For-Rent
For-Sale
All Ranges
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
Total
460
30.3%
240
15.8%
200
13.2%
150
9.9%
280
18.4%
190
12.4%
1,520
100.0%
Downtown Residential Mix
(Excluding Single-Family Detached)
Multi. . . . . . Family . . . . . .
Single. . Family . .
. . Attached . .
Total Households:
{Mix Distribution}:
For-Rent
For-Sale
All Ranges
Total
460
51.1%
240
26.7%
200
22.2%
900
100.0%
NOTE: Reference Appendix One, Tables 1 through 11.
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 11
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
T ARGET M ARKET A NALYSIS
Who is the potential market?
—The Target Markets—
The market for urban housing, particularly within downtowns, is now being fueled by the
convergence of the two largest generations in the history of America: the 79 million Baby Boomers
born between 1946 and 1964, and the 77 million Millennials, who were born from 1977 to 1996.
Boomer households have been moving from the full-nest to the empty-nest life stage at an
accelerating pace that will peak sometime in the next decade and continue beyond 2020. Since
the first Boomer turned 50 in 1996, empty-nesters have had a substantial impact on urban,
particularly downtown housing. After fueling the dramatic diffusion of the population into everlower-density exurbs for nearly three decades, Boomers, particularly affluent Boomers, are
rediscovering the merits and pleasures of urban living.
At the same time, Millennials are just leaving the nest. The Millennials are the first generation to
have been largely raised in the post-’70s world of the cul-de-sac as neighborhood, the mall as
village center, and the driver’s license as a necessity of life. As has been the case with predecessor
generations, significant numbers of Millennials are heading for the city. They are not just moving
to New York, Chicago, San Francisco and the other large American cities; often priced out of
these larger cities, Millennials are discovering second, third and fourth tier urban centers.
The convergence of two generations of this size—simultaneously reaching a point when urban
housing matches their life stage—is unprecedented. This year, there are about 41 million
Americans between the ages of 20 and 29, forecast to grow to over 44 million by 2015. In that
same year, the population aged 50 to 59 will have also reached 44 million, from 38 million
today. The synchronization of these two demographic waves will mean that there will be an
additional eight million potential urban housing consumers nine years from now.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 12
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
As determined by the target market analysis, and reflecting the national trend, the potential
market for new market-rate housing units in the Downtown can be characterized by general
household type as follows (see also Table 2):
Downtown Residential Mix By Household Type
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
HOUSEHOLD T YPE
P ERCENT
R ENTAL
OF T OTAL M ULTI-FAM .
FOR-SALE
M ULTI-FAM.
FOR-SALE
SF ATT.
Empty-Nesters & Retirees
34%
24%
46%
40%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
12%
11%
8%
20%
Younger Singles & Couples
54%
65%
46%
40%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
•
The largest general market segment is composed of younger singles and couples.
These households prefer to live downtown for its diversity, as well as for the
availability of a variety of activities, including employment and cultural
opportunities, as well as restaurants and clubs.
At 54 percent, younger singles and couples represent the largest market for newly-created
dwelling units within Downtown Pontiac. These households—primarily Twentysomethings
and Small-City Singles—tend to move frequently and prefer neighborhoods that are
ethnically and culturally diverse. These younger households are employed in a variety of
occupations, ranging from young professionals and office workers; small business owners;
artists or artisans; “knowledge workers;” and retail and service employees.
More than
three-quarters of these households would be moving to the downtown from a location
outside the city.
Younger singles and couples currently represent between 40 and 65 percent of the market,
depending on housing type, for new housing units in the downtown. However, as noted
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 13
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
above, the “Millennials” are likely to become an even larger market for downtown housing.
If the preference for urban housing demonstrated by the leading edge of this group is
representative of the entire generation, the market potential from this segment should
increase significantly over the next decade.
•
The next largest market segment is comprised of older households (empty nesters and
retirees). A significant number of these households have children who have grown up
and moved away; another large percentage are retirees, with incomes from pensions,
savings and investments, and social security.
A percentage of them are currently
living in Pontiac’s suburban neighborhoods.
Empty nesters and retirees—primarily Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters and Mainstream
Retirees—represent 34 percent of the potential market for new housing units in Downtown
Pontiac. An increasing number of these older households choose to leave the houses in
which they raised their families to move to newly-constructed housing wherever it is
available. The expense and aggravation of continued repairs to older housing stock can
overwhelm many older households; new housing—with new appliances in kitchens and
baths, floorplans that match modern lifestyles, and ample closet space in the
bedrooms—becomes increasingly attractive.
These empty-nest couples (many of whom lived in urban neighborhoods in their youth) are
likely to be attracted to appropriately-designed housing in vibrant urban neighborhoods.
In other cities, these households have been among the first to move into downtown units,
particularly once larger and more amenity-oriented condominiums have become available.
Empty-nest and retiree households currently represent between 24 percent and 46 percent of
the market for housing units in the downtown, depending on housing type. However, as
with the Millennial Generation, over the next several years this market segment should
substantially increase, because larger numbers of the “Baby Boom” generation will be
entering the empty-nest life stage. In 2006, the oldest Baby Boomers are celebrating their
60th birthdays; in city after city across the country, a significant number of Baby Boomers
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 14
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
have already made the decision to move from detached houses in the suburbs to rental or
condominium apartments in or near downtowns, when those units have been available. This
will be a significant segment of the empty-nest market in Downtown Pontiac.
•
The third, and smallest, general market segment is comprised of families with
children (traditional and non-traditional families).
A significant number of these
households are likely to be non-traditional families, notably single parents with one
or two children.
Non-traditional families, which during the 1990s became an increasingly larger
proportion of all U.S. households, encompass a wide range of family households, from a
single parent with one or more children, an adult caring for younger siblings, a grandparent
with grown children and grandchildren, to an unrelated same-sex couple with children.
Traditional families contain a married man and woman with an average of two or more
children. These can also include “blended” families, in which each parent was previously
married to another individual and each has children from that marriage.
Households with school-age children have historically been among the first to leave a city
when one or all of three significant neighborhood elements—good schools, safe and secure
streets, and sufficient green space—are perceived to be at risk.
Although this is the
smallest market segment, the households within the family groups—in this case, The
Entrepreneurs and Full-Nest Urbanites—are households that have a preference for urban
living. Most of the adults in these households were raised in or near an urban center and
have rejected the suburban alternative; most will already have made appropriate school
accommodations—public, parochial or private.
Depending on housing type, family-oriented households comprise between eight and 20
percent for new housing units within Downtown Pontiac.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table 2
Downtown Housing Market By Household Type
Derived From New Unit Purchase And Rental Propensities Of Draw Area Households
With The Potential To Move To The Area In 2006
Downtown Pontiac
The City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Multi. . . . . . Family . . . . .
Single. . Family . .
. . Attached . .
Total
For-Rent
For-Sale
All Ranges
Number of
Households:
900
460
240
200
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
34%
24%
46%
40%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
12%
11%
8%
20%
Younger
Singles & Couples
54%
65%
46%
40%
100%
100%
100%
100%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 16
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
The primary target groups, their median and range of incomes, and median home values, are as
follows:
Potential Housing Market
(In Order of Median Income)
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
HOUSEHOLD
T YPE
M EDIAN
INCOME
BROAD INCOME
R ANGE
M EDIAN H OME
VALUE (IF OWNED )
Empty Nesters & Retirees
Affluent Empty Nesters
Cosmopolitan Elite
Cosmopolitan Couples
Mainstream Retirees
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Middle-American Retirees
$100,200
$91,900
$91,300
$77,000
$74,100
$61,400
$59,600
$45,000–$155,000
$45,000–$135,000
$40,000–$150,000
$40,000–$110,000
$45,000–$100,000
$40,000–$85,000
$35,000–$90,000
$214,100
$213,000
$281,700
$167,100
$214,300
$158,900
$124,400
Traditional & Non-Traditional Families
The Entrepreneurs
Full-Nest Urbanites
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Cultural Families
Multi-Ethnic Families
$137,000
$103,200
$100,100
$68,600
$66,700
$75,000–$200,000
$60,000–$150,000
$50,000–$135,000
$35,000–$100,000
$40,000–$90,000
$332,500
$309,700
$219,400
$212,100
$139,500
Younger Singles & Couples
e-Types
Fast-Track Professionals
The VIPs
Upscale Suburban Couples
New Bohemians
Twentysomethings
Urban Achievers
Small-City Singles
$113,600
$90,600
$87,000
$81,500
$76,100
$64,700
$60,800
$55,400
$75,000–$150,000
$50,000–$125,000
$45,000–$120,000
$40,000–$125,000
$50,000–$100,000
$40,000–$90,000
$45,000–$75,000
$35,000–$75,000
$221,100
$203,700
$189,100
$167,100
$221,100
$148,700
$156,100
$140,600
N OTE : The names and descriptions of the market groups summarize each group’s tendencies—as
determined through geo-demographic cluster analysis—rather than their absolute composition. Hence,
every group could contain “anomalous” households, such as empty-nester households within a “full-nest”
category.
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
(Reference APPENDIX T HREE , TARGET M ARKET D ESCRIPTIONS , for detail on each target
group.)
The mix of general household types often progresses during the establishment of downtown living.
In city after American city, the successful establishment of new market-rate housing options in
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 17
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
previously non-residential areas has often been initially dependent upon “risk-oblivious”
households. “Risk-oblivious” households are mostly young singles and couples, often with a large
contingent of gays and a high percentage of artists and artisans seeking inexpensive live-work space.
These pioneers will typically begin neighborhood transformation by living illegally in
commercial space. Eventually, once the area becomes populated, restaurants, bars, clubs and
innovative or off-beat retail establishments begin to define the neighborhood character. At this
point, these neighborhoods become sought after by “risk-tolerant” households. “Risk-tolerant”
households are also usually young and almost always childless. The “risk-tolerant” includes those
willing to make investments in ownership housing—sometimes they are the former “risk
oblivious” seeking to recoup years of sweat equity.
In every case, however, the neighborhood established by these households has grown to encompass
more than simply housing; its flavor and tone has been reinforced by the non-residential
u s e s — a v a n t g a r d e shops, cutting-edge galleries, clubs, and eating and drinking
establishments—that follow the risk-oblivious and risk-tolerant households, make the
neighborhood acceptable for the “risk-aware” households that follow and contribute to the area’s
residential rent/price escalation and perceived economic stability.
The target market analysis indicates that there is a growing number of younger and older, one- and
two-person households who already live within the Pontiac city limits, and a significant market
with the potential to move from other urban areas.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 18
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
D OWNTOWN M ARKET-RATE RENT AND PRICE RANGES
What is the market currently able to pay?
—Rent and Price Ranges—
Based on the socio-economic and lifestyle characteristics of the target households, the target mix
distribution, and the supply-side context (see Tables 3 and 4), the general range of rents and prices
for newly-developed market-rate residential units in Downtown Pontiac that could currently be
sustained by the market is as follows (see also Table 5):
Rent, Price and Size Range
Newly-Created Housing (Adaptive Re-Use and New Construction)
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
R ENT /PRICE
R ANGE
SIZE
R ANGE
Hard Lofts *
$600–$900/month
600–1,000 sf
$0.90–$1.00 psf
Soft Lofts †
$675–$1,050/month
650–1,100 sf
$0.95–$1.04 psf
$925–$1,900/month
800–1,700 sf
$1.12–$1.16 psf
Hard Lofts *
$100,000–$150,000
750–1,200 sf
$125–$133 psf
Soft Lofts †
$125,000–$175,000
900–1,300 sf
$135–$139 psf
Luxury Condominiums
$225,000–$350,000
1,350–2,000 sf
$167–$175 psf
Rowhouses
$165,000–$295,000
1,000–1,900 sf
$155–$165 psf
HOUSING T YPE
R ENT /PRICE
PER SQ. FT.
R ENTAL —
Luxury Apartments
FOR-SALE—
* Unit interiors of “hard lofts” typically have high ceilings and commercial windows and are either
minimally finished, limited to architectural elements such as columns and fin walls, or
unfinished, with no interior partitions except those for bathrooms.
† Unit interiors of “soft lofts” may or may not have high ceilings and are fully finished, with the
interiors partitioned into separate rooms.
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
The above rents and prices are in year 2006 dollars, are exclusive of consumer options and
upgrades, or floor or location premiums, and cover the broad range of rents and prices currently
sustainable by the market. These rents and prices are also “market rates”—that is, within the
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 19
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
current economic capability of the target households that represent the initial market for marketrate housing; however, depending on acquisition and construction costs, it is likely that units in
some of these price and rent ranges could require subsidies to bring to market.
Significant premiums are typically achievable on units that face squares, parks or greens, or are
located on high floors with view potential. The rents and prices will depend not only on location
and adjacencies, but also on the number of new units created in that location; the larger the number
of units created, the greater the potential for a wider range of values.
How fast will the units lease or sell?
—Market Capture—
After nearly 20 years’ experience in various cities across the country, and in the context of the
target market methodology, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has determined that, for new
development (including both adaptive re-use of existing non-residential buildings as well as new
construction) within a downtown study area, an annual capture of between 10 and 15 percent of the
potential market, depending on housing type, is achievable. Based on a 15 percent capture of the
potential market for rental and for-sale multi-family units, and a 10 percent capture of for-sale
single-family attached units, then, Downtown Pontiac should be able to support up to 125 new
units per year, as follows:
Annual Capture of Market Potential
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
NUMBER OF
HOUSEHOLDS
CAPTURE
RATE
NUMBER OF
NEW U NITS
Rental Multi-Family
(lofts/apartments, leaseholder)
460
15%
69
For-Sale Multi-Family
(lofts/apartments, condo/co-op ownership)
240
15%
36
For-Sale Single-Family Attached
(townhouses/rowhouses, fee-simple ownership)
200
10%
20
Total
900
HOUSING T YPE
125
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 20
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Based on the migration and mobility analyses, and dependent on the creation of appropriate new
housing units, more than 80 percent of the annual market potential of 125 new dwelling units in
Downtown Pontiac, or more than 100 units per year, could be from households moving from
outside Pontiac. Over five years, the realization of that market potential could lead to an increase
of 500 households living in Downtown Pontiac that moved from a location other than the city.
This analysis examines market potential over the next five years. Because of the major changes in
the composition of American households that occurred during the 1990s (see T HE T ARGET
M ARKETS below), and the likelihood that significant changes will continue, both the depth and
breadth of the potential market for downtown living is likely to expand. The experience of other
American cities has been that, once the downtown residential alternative has been established, the
percentage of households that will consider downtown housing typically increases.
N OTE : Target market capture rates are a unique and highly-refined measure of feasibility. Target market
capture rates are not equivalent to—and should not be confused with—penetration rates or traffic conversion
rates.
The target market capture rate is derived by dividing the annual forecast absorption—in aggregate and by
housing type—by the number of households that have the potential to purchase or rent new housing within a
specified area in a given year.
The penetration rate is derived by dividing the total number of dwelling units planned for a property by the
total number of draw area households, sometimes qualified by income.
The traffic conversion rate is derived by dividing the total number of buyers or renters by the total number
of prospects that have visited a site.
Because the prospective market for a location is more precisely defined, target market capture
rates are higher than the more grossly-derived penetration rates. However, the resulting higher
capture rates are well within the range of prudent feasibility.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table 3
Page 1 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Address
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
. . . . . City of Pontiac . . . . .
Pinewood Townhomes (1968)
252
957 North Perry Street
1BR/1BA (TH)
$539
2BR/1BA (TH)
3BR/1BA (TH)
$639
$790
125
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
3BR/1.5BA
$549
$649
$894
750
850
1,450
$0.73
$0.76
$0.62
256
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
$640
$750
750
900
$0.85
$0.83
Turtle Creek (1980)
{Remodeled 2000}
1 Oak Creek Lane
Auburn Heights (1966)
44 Birwoode Drive
Grosvenor North THs (1968)
116
94 Stegman Lane
2BR/1BA
3BR/1.5BA
750 to
770
850
990
$0.70 to
$0.72
$0.75
$0.80
98% occupancy
Tot lot.
97% occupancy
99% occupancy
Gated entrance,
pool.
96% occupancy
$649
$749
950
1,050
$0.68
$0.71
. . . . . City of Aurburn Hills . . . . .
Adams Creek
3280 S. Adams Road
114
1BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA
Auburn Ridge (1987-89)
2582 Davison Avenue
230
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA Loft
3BR/2BA
$638 to
$735
$675 to
$845
$649
$749
$749
$849
$949
$1,050
664
800
to
950
to
1,050 to
1,175
1,200
to
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
95% occupancy
$0.96 to
Clubhouse, pool,
$1.11
fitness center, tennis courts,
$0.84 to
basketball courts.
$1.06
$0.68 to
$0.79
$0.71 to
$0.72
$0.79 to
$0.88
98% occupancy
Covered parking.
Table 3
Page 2 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
Address
. . . . . City of Aurburn Hills {continued} . . . . .
Village Park of
Auburn Hills (1972: 2006)
1510 Nob Lane
351
1BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA
Townhomes of
Meadowbrook (1980)
2582 Davison Avenue
Lake Village of
Auburn Hills (1998)
100 Lake Village Blvd.
97% occupancy
$650 to
$680
$735 to
$780
230
1BR/1BA (TH)
2BR/2BA (TH)
$750
$885
3BR/2BA (TH)
$1,025
580
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
3BR/3BA
Bloomfield Villas (1990: 2000)
460
2862 Tall Oaks Court
2BR/2BA
Lake Village of Auburn Hills (1998)580
The Boulevard (1987)
157
2651 Greenstone Blvd.
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
$755
$965
$905
$1,165
$1,145
$1,310
to
to
to
$795 to
$825
$850
$890
$990
$1,150
to
to
720
915
$0.90 to
$0.94
$0.80 to
$0.85
950
1,050 to
1,100
1,200
$0.79
$0.80 to
$0.84
$0.85
900 to
950
1,100 to
1,350
1,532
$0.84 to
$1.02
$0.82 to
$0.86
$0.75 to
$0.86
1,000
939
1,161 to
1,410
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
$0.80 to
$0.83
$0.91 to
$0.95
$0.82 to
$0.85
Clubhouse, raquetball,
fitness center, business
center, pool.
99% occupancy
Pool.
96% occupancy
Clubhouse, fitness
centers, garages, pool,
tennis court, concierge.
98% occupancy
Pool, fitness center.
96% occupancy
99% occupancy
Clubhouse, pool,
fitnes center,
tennis court.
Table 3
Page 3 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
Address
. . . . . City of Aurburn Hills{continued} . . . . .
Beacon Hill Apts. (1987)
2617 Beacon Hill Drive
624
1BR/1BA Loft
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA
2BR/2BA
2BR/3BA
Westbury Village (1989)
201 North Squirrel Road
$915
$740 to
$880
$870 to
$910
$985 to
$1,030
$940 to
$1,240
$1,250 to
$1,330
1,020
845 to
990
895
925 to
1,250
1,143 to
1,894
1,450 to
1,495
$0.90
$0.88
$0.89
$0.97
$1.02
$0.82
$1.06
$0.65
$0.82
$0.86
$0.89
to
to
to
to
to
236
2BR/2.5BA (TH)
3BR/2.5BA (TH)
93% occupancy
Clubhouse, fitness
centers, garages, pool,
tennis court, concierge.
98% occupancy
$982
$990 to
$1,024
1,500
1,450
$0.65
$0.68 to
$0.71
Fitness center, pool,
community center, tennis
courts.
. . . . City of Bloomfield Hills & West Bloomfield Township . . . .
Bloomfield on the Green (1998) 180
2510 Woodrow Wilson
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA
Crystal Lake Apts. (1989)
850 Golf Drive
144
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
$499 to
$690
$649
$720
$764
$800
$695
$810
800 to
915
900 to
950
1,050
900
1,200
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
$0.62 to
$0.75
$0.72 to
$0.76
$0.73 to
$0.76
$0.77
$0.68
96% occupancy
Two pools,
fitness center.
96% occupancy
Clubhouse, pool.
Table 3
Page 4 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
Address
. . . . City of Bloomfield Hills & West Bloomfield Township {continued}. . . .
Aldingbrooke (1998)
6350 Aldingbrooke Circle North
667
1BR/1BA
1BR/2BA
2BR/2BA
3BR/2BA
3BR/2.5BA (TH)
3BR/3BA(TH)
Arbors of West
Bloomfield (1989)
7517 Arbors Boulevard
200
2BR/2BA
2BR/2.5BA
95% occupancy
$974 to
$1,064
$1,374
$1,314 to
$1,644
$1,734
$1,800 to
$2,280
$1,914
1,000
2,000
1,400 to
2,000
1,680
1,465 to
2,500
2,800
$0.97 to
$1.06
$0.69
$0.82 to
$0.94
$1.03
$0.91 to
$1.23
$0.68
$1,345 to
$2,050
$1,695
$1,895
1,350 to
1,750
1,700
$1.00 to
$1.17
$1.00
Brandywine (2002)
7950 Brandywine Boulevard
Gated entrance,
pool, tennis courts,
fitness center.
Attached garages.
96% occupancy
Pool,
tennis courts.
Attached garages.
95% occupancy
2BR/2BA( TH)
3BR/2BA
3BR/2.5BA (TH)
3BR/3BA (TH)
$2,700
$2,400 to
$2,675
$2,700
$2,395 to
$2,660
2,227
1,738 to
2,049
2,262
1,794 to
1,940
$1.21
$1.31 to
$1.38
$1.19
$1.34 to
$1.37
Garages, fitness center,
spa/hot tub and pool.
. . . . . City of Troy . . . . .
Village Park (1974: 2000)
500 Coachman Drive
544
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
99% occupancy
$710 to
$790
$800 to
$875
800 to
950
1,000 to
1,100
$0.83 to
$0.89
$0.80
Clubhouse with
racquetball court, fitness
center, sauna, business
center; pool.
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Table 3
Page 5 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
Address
. . . . . City of Troy {continued} . . . . .
Charter Square
2860 Charter Boulevard
494
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA
3BR/1.5BA (TH)
Buckingham Square
3100 Gloucester
146
1BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA
2BR/2.5BA (TH)
3BR/2.5BA (TH)
Village Green Troy East
(1972: 2000)
2330 John R. Road
204
Studio
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
Regents Park (2000)
299
2751 Melcolmbe
1BR/BA; 1BR/1.5BA
2BR/1BA; 2BR/2BA; 2BR/2.5 BA
3BR/2BA; 3BR/2.5BA
$730
$790
$945
$985
$875
$1,090
$1,098
$1,286
$745
$785
$860
$955
$1,145
$1,365
to
to
to
to
to
to
$800 to
$850
$875 to
$1,025
$950 to
$1,300
750 to
820
875 to
920
915 to
980
1,100
$0.96
$0.97
$1.07
$1.08
$0.96
$1.11
$1.00
$1.17
800
850
950
1,004
1,257
1,400
$0.92 to
$0.93
$0.95 to
$0.91
$0.91
$0.98
645
800 to
940
1,000 to
1,225
to
to
99% occupancy
Pool, fitness center,
spa, tennis court,
clubhouse.
to
to
$1.24 to
$1.32
$1.09 to
$1.09
$0.95 to
$1.06
100% occupancy
Pool, fitness center,
community room.
98% occupancy
Pool, spa,tennis,
fitness center.
99% occupancy
$1,215 to
$1,655
$1,410 to
$2,335
$2,120 to
$3,420
875 to
1,200
1,170
1,500
1,700 to
2,500
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
$1.38 to
Gated entrance,
$1.39
clubhouse, conservatory,
$1.21 to
theater, library,
$1.56
health club, conference center,
$1.25 to indoor pool, concierge and
$1.37
valet service.
Table 3
Page 6 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
Address
. . . . . City of Rochester . . . . .
Rochester Place (1986)
1016 Ironwood Court
349
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
Great Oaks (1960)
940 Oakwood Drive
358
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
2BR/2.5BA (TH)
Forest Ridge (1969: 1999)
425 West Second Street
165
1BR/BA
2BR/1BA
Village Green (1999)
701 Green Circle
300
1BR/1BA
1BR/1.5BA
2BR/2BA
3BR/2.5BA
$585 to
$595
$640 to
$655
500
$585 to
$685
$635
$760
$680
$830
$900
$1,015
775
$620
$750
$700
$970
$920
$1,165
$1,065
$1,440
$1,200
$1,900
700
900
1,007
1,080
1,150
700
800
800
1,000
1,225
1,425
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
$1.17 to
$1.19
$0.91 to
$0.94
$0.75
$0.88
$0.71
$0.75
$0.63
$0.77
$0.78
$0.88
to
99% occupancy
Pool,
tennis courts.
to
to
to
100% occupancy
Pool.
$0.94
$0.89
$0.88
$1.21
$0.92
$1.17
$0.87
$1.18
$0.84
$1.33
99% occupancy
Pool.
to
to
to
to
100% occupancy
Pool, fitness center, spa,
tennis court, clubhouse.
Table 3
Page 7 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
Address
. . . . . City of Rochester Hills . . . . .
Essex at Hampton (1977: 2000)
442
64 Village Circle Drive
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/1.5BA (TH)
3BR/1.5BA (TH)
Northridge (1981: 2000)
1204 Sherwood Court
530
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
2BR/1.5BA (TH)
Village Park (1989)
1750 Melville Drive
214
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/2BA (TH)
Lake Village (1999)
2450 Norfolk Drive
192
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
Oaks at Hampton (1986)
643 Dorchester
544
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
3BR/2BA (TH)
$550
$670
$850 to
$990
$925
$675 to
$865
$945 to
$995
$1,095 to
$1,195
$760
$800
$935
$783 to
$915
$902 to
$999
$815 to
$820
$905 to
$955
$1,120
700
900
945 to
1,145
1,145
770 to
880
1,100 to
1,185
1,650
800
894
954
1,000
1,340
850
1,050 to
1,100
1,400
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
$0.79
$0.74
$0.86 to
$0.90
$0.81
$0.98 to
$0.88
$0.84 to
$0.86
$0.66 to
$0.72
$0.95
$0.89
$0.98
$0.78 to
$0.92
$0.67 to
$0.75
$0.96 to
$0.96
$0.86 to
$0.87
$0.80
98% occupancy
Pool, tennis courts,
clubhouse.
98% occupancy
Clubhouse,
tennis courts.
99% occupancy
Clubhouse, fitness
center, pool, tennis and
volleyball courts.
98% occupancy
Clubhouse; media,
business and conference
center, exercise facility,
pool, jacuzzi, putting
green; gated entrance.
99% occupancy
Clubhouse, pool.
Table 3
Page 8 of 8
Summary Of Selected Rental Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Number
of Units
Property (Date Opened)
Address
Reported
Base Rent
Reported
Unit Size
Rent per
Sq. Ft.
Additional Information
. . . . . City of Rochester Hills {continued} . . . . .
River Oaks
3200 River Oaks Boulevard
424
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
2BR/2BA (TH)
3BR/3BA (TH)
Village Green (1998)
1901 Village Green Boulevard
265
Studio
1BR/1BA
2BR/1BA
2BR/2BA (TH)
3BR/2BA
Cider Mill Village
1515 GoldRush
336
1BR/1BA
2BR/2BA
2BR/2.5BA
3BR/2BA
3BR/2.5BA
4BR/2.5BA
$895 to
$980
$995
$1,299
$1,890
$1,920
$599
$768
$895 to
$1,110
$930
$1,185
$915 to
$1,360
$1,380
$1,650
$1,195
$1,495 to
$1,595
$2,095
$1,650 to
$2,095
$2,495
$1,995 to
$2,095
920
1,250
2,000
2,320
500
900
1,025
1,125
1,225
1,175 to
1,325
1,400
1,500
944
1,236
1,329
2,202
1,390
1,838
2,274
1,637
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
$0.97 to
$1.07
$0.80
$0.65
$0.81 to
$0.83
$1.20
$1.54
$0.99
$1.23
$0.83
$1.05
$0.78
$1.16
$0.99
$1.18
to
to
99% occupancy
Pool, clubhouse,
fitness center, sauna,
volleyball and tennis
courts; gated entrance.
98% occupancy
Clubhouse, pool,
business center, fitness
center.
to
to
to
$1.27
$1.21 to
$1.29
$0.95
$1.19 to
$1.51
$1.10
$1.22 to
$1.28
99% occupancy
Pool, playground,
fitness center,
tennis courts, sauna,
residents lounge.
Table 4
Page 1 of 2
Summary Of Selected For-Sale Multi-Family
And Single-Family Attached Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Development (Date Opened)
Developer/Builder
Housing
Type
Unit Price
Range
Unit Size
Range
Price Per
Sq. Ft.
Total
Units
Total Sales
(Monthly
Average)
. . . . . City of Pontiac . . . . .
Villages at Stonegate
Pointe (Jan. '03)
Neumann Homes
CO
Fairview Estates (Feb. '03)
Michael Furnari
CO
University Park (Feb. '03)
Crescendo Homes
CO
Towns at Stonegate
Pointe (Jan. '03)
Neumann Homes
TH
Towns of Central Boulevard
at Stonegate Pointe (Jan. '03)
Neumann Homes
TH
$102,715 to
$146,990
1,146 to
1,343
$90
$109
$164,000 to
$174,000
1,300 to
1,500
$116 to
$126
$129,000 to
$155,000
1,461 to
1,461
$88 to
$106
$146,847 to
$156,900
1,176
$125 to
$133
$151,799 to
$172,584
1,216 to
1,416
$122 to
$125
140
58 (1.2)
28-30 left
69
53 (1.3)
42
14 (0.7)
110
46 (1.0)
5-6 left
154
38 (0.9)
165
22 (1.0)
. . . . . Waterford Township . . . . .
Towne Centre Park (Nov. '04)
Ivanhoe Huntley
TH
$156,900 to
$220,900
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
1,370 to
1,667
$115 to
$133
Table 4
Page 2 of 2
Summary Of Selected For-Sale Multi-Family
And Single-Family Attached Properties
Oakland County, Michigan
October, 2006
Development (Date Opened)
Developer/Builder
Housing
Type
Unit Price
Range
Unit Size
Range
Price Per
Sq. Ft.
Total
Units
Total Sales
(Monthly
Average)
102
8 (4.0)
730
209 (3.7)
123
116 (2.6)
124
51 (1.8)
. . . . . City of Southfield . . . . .
Spring Haven Villas
(June '06)
Centex Homes
Villas
$174,000 to
$194,000
1,564 to
1,818
$107 to
$111
. . . . . City of Auburn Hills . . . . .
Forester Square (Nov. 2001)
Bruce Building Company
CO
Auburn Park (Jan. '03)
Sherr Development
Auburn Grove (March '04)
Jacobson Brothers
& The JAR Group
Attached
1-Story
Units
$149,900 to
$215,619
1,780 to
2,859
$75 to
$84
$159,900
1,300 to
1,760
$91 to
$123
$203,900 to
$264,900
1,349 to
1,990
$133 to
$151
. . . . . City of Troy . . . . .
Bayberry Place
(Aug. '05)
Jacobson Brothers
& The JAR Group
CO
64
$99,900 to
$123,000
801 to
900
$125 to
$137
. . . . . City of Rochester . . . . .
Millrace
(Aug. '05)
Rhumb Line, LLC
TH
16
$319,000 to
$337,000
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
1,650 to
$193 to
$204
3 (0.2)
Table 5
Optimum Market Position--Market-Rate Dwelling Units
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Housing Type
Base
Rent/Price
Range*
Base
Unit Size
Range
Base
Rent/Price
Per Sq. Ft.*
Multi-Family For-Rent
Hard Lofts
Open Floorplans/1ba
Soft Lofts
Studios to Two-Bedrooms
Luxury Apartments
One- to Three-Bedrooms
69 units
$600 to
$900
600 to
1,000
$0.90 to
$1.00
$675 to
$1,050
650 to
1,100
$0.95 to
$1.04
$925 to
$1,900
800 to
1,700
$1.12 to
$1.16
Multi-Family For-Sale
Hard Lofts
Open Floorplans/1ba
Soft Lofts
One- and Two-Bedrooms
Luxury Condominiums
Two- and Three-Bedrooms
36 units
$100,000 to
$150,000
750 to
1,200
$125 to
$133
$125,000 to
$175,000
900 to
1,300
$135 to
$139
$225,000 to
$350,000
1,350 to
2,000
$167 to
$175
Single-Family Attached For-Sale
Rowhouses
Two- and Three-Bedrooms
Annual
Market
Capture
$165,000 to
$295,000
20 units
1,000 to
1,900
$155 to
$165
NOTE: Base rents/prices in year 2006 dollars and exclude floor and view premiums,
options and upgrades.
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 32
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
—Rental Distribution—
The market-rate rent range covers leases by households with annual incomes ranging between
$30,000 and $100,000 or more. A one-person household with an income of $30,000 per year,
paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for rent and utilities (the national standard for
affordability) could be qualified for a rent of $600 per month. A two- or three-person household,
with an income of $100,000 or more per year, paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for
rent and utilities, could be qualified for a rent of $1,900 per month or more.
Based on the target household mix (listed on Table 6) and the incomes of the target households, the
distribution by rent range of the 69 new rental units that could be absorbed each year over the next
five years in Downtown Pontiac is as follows:
Loft/Apartment Distribution by Rent Range
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
M ONTHLY
R ENT R ANGE
N UMBER
OF U NITS
$500–$750
12
17.4%
$750–$1,000
12
17.4%
$1,000–$1,250
14
20.3%
$1,250–$1,500
12
17.4%
$1,500–$1,750
10
14.5%
$1,750 and up
9
13.0%
69
100.0%
Total:
P ERCENTAGE
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
More than 83 percent of the lofts/apartments with monthly rents of $1,000 or less are likely to be
leased by younger singles and couples; just four percent are likely to be leased by non-traditional
families; and12.5 percent are likely to be leased by empty nesters and retirees.
The most
expensive soft lofts and luxury apartments, with rents of $1,500 or more, are likely to be leased by
an approximately even mix of dual-income couples, both older and younger, with the remaining
21 percent likely to be rented by compact families where both parents are employed.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table 6
Annual Market Capture
Target Groups For Multi-Family For-Rent
Market-Rate Lofts/Apartments
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Number of
Households
At 15 Percent
Capture
Cosmopolitan Couples
Mainstream Retirees
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Middle-American Retirees
10
30
40
20
10
2
4
5
3
2
Subtotal:
110
16
The Entrepreneurs
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Multi-Ethnic Families
10
10
20
10
2
2
3
2
Subtotal:
50
9
e-Types
Fast-Track Professionals
The VIPs
Upscale Suburban Couples
New Bohemians
Twentysomethings
Urban Achievers
Small-City Singles
20
30
20
60
30
50
40
50
3
5
3
8
5
7
6
7
Subtotal:
300
44
Total Households:
460
69
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Younger
Singles & Couples
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 34
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
—For-Sale Distribution—
The market-rate price range covers purchases by households with annual incomes generally ranging
between $35,000 and $125,000. A one-person household with an income of $35,000 per year,
paying no more than 25 percent of gross income for housing costs, including mortgage principal,
interest at current rates, taxes, insurance and utilities, could be qualified for a mortgage of
$95,000. A two- or three-person household with an income of $125,000 per year, paying no more
than 25 percent of gross income for housing costs, including mortgage principal, interest at current
rates, taxes, insurance and utilities, could be qualified for a mortgage of $325,000 or more.
Based on the target household mix (listed on Table 7) and incomes of the target households, the
distribution by price range of the 36 market-rate for-sale apartments that could be absorbed each
year over the next five years in Downtown Pontiac is as follows:
Loft/Apartment Distribution by Price Range
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
PRICE
R ANGE
N UMBER
OF U NITS
$100,000–$150,000
8
22.2%
$150,000–$200,000
10
27.8%
$200,000–$250,000
8
22.2%
$250,000–$300,000
6
16.7%
$300,000 and up
4
11.1%
36
100.0%
Total:
P ERCENTAGE
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
Younger singles and couples represent approximately 55 percent of the market for lofts or
condominiums priced at $200,000 or less, and empty nesters and retirees the remaining 45
percent. Half of the most expensive soft lofts and luxury apartments, priced at $250,000 or more,
are likely to be purchased by empty nesters and retirees, with 40 percent by affluent compact
families, and the remaining 10 percent by younger couples.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table 7
Annual Market Capture
Target Groups For Multi-Family For-Sale
Market-Rate Lofts/Apartments
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Number of
Households
At 15 Percent
Capture
Affluent Empty Nesters
Cosmopolitan Couples
Mainstream Retirees
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Middle-American Retirees
20
10
20
40
10
10
3
2
3
3
2
2
Subtotal:
110
15
10
10
20
2
2
4
e-Types
Fast-Track Professionals
The VIPs
Upscale Suburban Couples
New Bohemians
Twentysomethings
Urban Achievers
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
10
30
10
20
10
10
10
10
110
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
17
Total Households:
240
36
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
The Entrepreneurs
Full-Nest Urbanites
Subtotal:
Younger
Singles & Couples
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 36
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Based on the target household mix (listed on Table 8) and incomes of the target groups, the
distribution by price range of the 20 market-rate townhouses/rowhouses that could be absorbed
each year over the next five years in Downtown Pontiac is as follows:
Townhouse/Rowhouse Distribution by Price Range
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
PRICE
R ANGE
N UMBER
OF U NITS
$150,000–$200,000
8
40.0%
$200,000–$250,000
8
40.0%
$250,000 and up
4
20.0%
20
100.0%
Total:
P ERCENTAGE
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
In this case, empty nesters and retirees represent half of the market for townhouses or rowhouses
priced at $200,000 or less; younger singles and couples comprise 37.5 percent; and families the
remaining 12.5 percent. Nearly 42 percent of the townhouses/rowhouses priced at $200,000 or
more are likely to be purchased by affluent younger couples; a third by empty nesters and retirees,
and the remaining 25 percent by compact families.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Table 8
Annual Market Capture
Target Groups For Single-Family Attached For-Sale
Townhouses/Rowhouses
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Affluent Empty Nesters
Cosmopolitan Elite
Cosmopolitan Couples
Mainstream Retirees
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
Number of
Households
At 10 Percent
Capture
10
10
10
10
30
10
80
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
The Entrepreneurs
Full-Nest Urbanites
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Cultural Families
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
Subtotal:
40
4
e-Types
Fast-Track Professionals
The VIPs
Upscale Suburban Couples
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
20
10
10
20
10
10
80
2
1
1
2
1
1
8
Total Households:
200
20
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Younger
Singles & Couples
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 38
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
DOWNTOWN HOUSING TYPES
Adaptive re-use of existing, non-residential buildings can yield either lofts or fully-finished
apartments. The lofts, whether for-rent or for-sale, new construction or adaptive re-use, should
include work space as a permitted use.
Building and unit types most successfully used in residential redevelopment or new residential
construction in other downtowns comparable in size and scale to Downtown Pontiac, include:
•
Courtyard Apartment Building:
In new construction, an urban, pedestrian-oriented
equivalent to conventional garden apartments. An urban courtyard building is four or more
stories, often combined with non-residential uses on the ground floor. The building should
be built to the sidewalk edge and, to provide privacy and a sense of security, the first floor
should be elevated significantly above the sidewalk. Parking is either below grade, at
grade behind or interior to the building, or in an integral structure.
The building’s apartments can be leased, as in a conventional income property, or sold to
individual buyers, under condominium or cooperative ownership, in which the owner pays a
monthly maintenance fee in addition to the purchase price.
•
Loft Apartment Building: Either adaptive re-use of older warehouse and manufacturing
buildings or a new-construction building type inspired by those buildings.
The new-
construction version is usually elevator-served with double-loaded corridors.
Hard Lofts: Unit interiors typically have high ceilings and commercial windows and are
minimally finished (with limited architectural elements such as columns and fin walls), or
unfinished (with no interior partitions except those for bathrooms).
Soft Lofts: Unit interiors typically have high ceilings, are fully finished and partitioned
into individual rooms. Units may also contain architectural elements reminiscent of “hard
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 39
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
lofts,” such as exposed ceiling beams and ductwork, concrete floors and industrial finishes,
particularly if the building is an adaptive re-use of an existing industrial structure.
The building’s loft apartments can be leased, as in a conventional income property, or sold
to individual buyers, under condominium or cooperative ownership, in which the owner
pays a monthly maintenance fee in addition to the purchase price. (Loft apartments can
also be incorporated into multifamily buildings along with conventionally-finished
apartment units.)
•
Mansion Apartment Building: A two- to four-story flexible-use structure with a street
façade resembling a large detached house (hence, “mansion”).
The building can
accommodate a variety of uses—from rental or for-sale apartments, professional offices,
any of these uses over ground-floor retail, a bed and breakfast inn, or a large single-family
detached house—and its physical structure complements other buildings within a
neighborhood.
Parking behind the mansion buildings can be either alley-loaded, or front-loaded served
by shared drives. The form of the parking can be in open lots, in garages with units above,
or integral to the building.
Mansion buildings should be strictly regulated in form, but flexible in use. However,
flexibility in use is somewhat constrained by the handicapped accessibility regulations in
both the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
•
Townhouse/ Rowhouse: Similar in form to a conventional suburban townhouse except that
the garage—either attached or detached—is located to the rear of the unit and accessed
from an alley or auto court. Unlike conventional townhouses, urban townhouses conform to
the pattern of streets, typically with shallow front-yard setbacks. To provide privacy and
a sense of security, the first floor should be elevated significantly above the sidewalk.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 40
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
U NIT , PROPERTY AND D OWNTOWN A MENITIES
In-Unit Amenities
To meet the expectations of potential urban residents, all units should be wired for cable
television and high-speed internet or, if practical, be served by a building-wide WiFi system. For
“hard lofts” or “soft lofts” in adaptive re-use structures, existing floors should be salvaged and
refinished wherever possible. Although hard lofts are typically designed without interior walls,
with the exception of the bathroom, as much closet and storage space as possible should be
provided. “Soft lofts” are units that are fully finished and partitioned into individual rooms but
also contain architectural elements reminiscent of “hard lofts,” such as exposed beams, ductwork
and masonry or brick walls, reconditioned floors and large, commercial-style windows.
In the kitchens, buyers of the more expensive units will expect countertops to be polished concrete
or some other solid material, e.g.—Corian, granite, with integral or undermount sinks—with
backsplashes either matching or finished in stainless steel; renters will expect contemporary,
durable finishes appropriate to urban living, as opposed to the “beige” interiors of suburban multifamily housing. Cabinets should have flush fronts with integral or contemporary pulls, offered in a
variety of finishes, ranging from bamboo to frosted glass. Appliances should be mid-grade with
stainless fronts.
Wherever practical, suburban condominium finishes should be avoided. Larger units should be
configured as “soft” lofts, with bedrooms separated by walls or, in cases of interior rooms,
partitions that run only partially to the ceiling. HVAC should be designed with exposed spiral
ductwork.
Lighting fixtures should have clean and minimalist designs, capable of
accommodating compact fluorescent bulbs.
In the lofts, floors should not be carpeted, but should, instead, be offered with polished concrete as
standard and with bamboo as an option in the main rooms and bedrooms, and slate as an option in
the kitchens and baths.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 41
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Walls should be drywall finished with simple contemporary baseboards.
Wherever possible,
masonry walls should be exposed. Doors should be flush, matched-grain wood with stainless
handles and hardware.
Bathrooms should have a standard contemporary finish package, including vessel-style sinks, and
slate, marble or granite counter, shower and/or tub enclosures. All fixtures, faucets and lighting
should be clean, minimalist and contemporary. Again, lighting should accommodate compact
fluorescent bulbs.
Some of the “luxury apartments” will require more conventional finishes, such as crown molding,
chair rails, five-panel interior doors, carpeted bedroom floors, with carpet or hardwood in living
and dining areas and tile in the kitchens and baths. Kitchen countertops should be Corian, granite
or bluestone, with integral or undermount ceramic sinks and upscale appliance, such as stainless
steel, and a choice of European or traditional cabinets. Bathrooms should have ceramic tile floors
and high-style, traditional fixtures.
Property Amenities
Larger rental properties, in order to be competitive, should provide the amenities that have
become the norm for investment-grade assets: business center, clubroom with catering kitchen, and
some level of exercise facility. All properties, small and large, benefit from supplying safe and
secure parking. The target households are not only car owners, they are much more likely than
average to own more expensive cars, and appreciate secure parking.
For condominiums, if the property is large enough (at least 50 units), property amenities could
include a small fitness center with state-of-the-art treadmills, bikes, Stairmasters, free weights.
Building amenities in a large condominium property could also include an owners’ club with a
full working bar, media area with flat-screen television, chess, backgammon and card room,
library and either high-speed internet access or Wi-Fi.
If space within the building is available, other amenities that are not very expensive to provide
include storage units, bicycle racks, and recycling bins.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 42
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Any additional property amenities would depend on the scale of the development and the
proposed price points; the more expensive the units, the greater the number of amenities that the
buyers will expect. For very high-end developments, concierge services, accommodating a wide
range of personal services, from dry cleaning pick-up/delivery to theater reservations, would be
appropriate. However, if these kinds of services generate high condominium fees, there is likely to
be buyer resistance. It is for this reason that swimming pools are not recommended; pools are
expensive to build and maintain, and are typically infrequently used by residents.
Downtown Amenities
Since the diversity, and social and cultural amenities of the city are one of the attractions of urban
living, successful downtown housing is not necessarily dependent upon the creation of extensive
(and expensive ) recreational amenities.
However, locations that are within walking distance of parks and greenways, and entertainment
venues—such as theaters, clubs and restaurants, as well as provide convenient access to a variety of
retailers, including a grocery store—hold a significant market advantage. Because of the high
value placed by the potential market on intimate urban green spaces, it is in the city’s interest to
undertake or encourage the development of small “pocket parks” or green spaces wherever possible
throughout the downtown. Some of these parks could be specialized, such as “Bark Parks,” where
residents can take their dogs, or just a small green area, perhaps enhanced by a sculpture, but
including seating that is shaded by trees.
The lifestyle affinities and purchase propensities of the target household groups for the Downtown
Pontiac support the premise that additional community amenities are not required. Most of the
activities in which the potential market demonstrates the highest participation rates are natural for
households with a propensity for downtown living. In aggregate, although the prospective residents
have lifestyles that do not include extensive physical activities, they do have very strong interests in
those activities that are typically only available in a downtown.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 43
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Relevant activities in which these groups participate at rates at least 25 percent higher than the national
average are, in order:
•
Membership in a health club, YWCA/YMCA
(40 percent higher than the national average)
•
Go to concerts
(38 percent higher)
•
Attend live theater
(34 percent higher)
•
Belong to an arts organization
(27 percent higher)
•
Go to museums
(27 percent higher)
•
Go to the movies at least once a week
(26 percent higher)
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 44
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
M ETHODOLOGY
The technical analysis of market potential for Downtown Pontiac included delineation of the
draw areas and physical evaluation of the area and the surrounding context.
The delineation of the draw areas for housing within the City of Pontiac was based on historic
settlement patterns, migration trends for Oakland County, and other market dynamics.
The evaluation of market potential for Downtown was derived from target market analysis of
households in the draw areas, and yielded:
•
The depth and breadth of the potential housing market by tenure (rental and
ownership) and by type (apartments, attached and detached houses); and
•
The composition of the potential housing market (empty-nesters/retirees,
traditional and non-traditional families, younger singles/couples).
N OTE : The Appendix Tables referenced here are provided in a separate document.
D ELINEATION OF THE D RAW A REAS (M IGRATION A NALYSIS)—
Taxpayer migration data provide the framework for the delineation of the draw areas—the
principal counties of origin for households that are likely to move to Oakland County. These
data are maintained at the county and “county equivalent” level by the Internal Revenue Service
and provide a clear representation of mobility patterns.
Appendix One, Table 1.
Migration Trends
Oakland County migration and mobility patterns from 2000 through 2004—the latest data
available from the Internal Revenue Service—show that the number of households moving into the
county has fallen from approximately 30,150 households in 2000 to just over 26,500 households in
2004. Just under half of the county’s in-migration is from adjacent or nearby counties—households
moving to Oakland County from Wayne and Macomb Counties.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 45
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Over the same period, the number of households moving out of the county also fell, from just over
32,200 households in 2000 to just under 30,000 households in 2004. However, Oakland County’s
annual household loss due to net out-migration has risen from 2,055 households in 2000 to nearly
3,500 households in 2004.
N OTE : Although net migration provides insights into the county’s historic ability to attract or retain
households compared to other locations, it is those households likely to move into the county (gross inmigration) that represent the county’s external market potential.
Based on the migration data, the draw areas for the City of Pontiac have been delineated as
follows:
•
The primary (internal) draw area, covering households currently living within the Pontiac
city limits, as well as those currently living in the balance of Oakland County. Each year,
approximately five percent of the households living in the city have the financial capacities
to rent or purchase new or existing market-rate dwelling units and are likely to move to
another residence within the city; between five and six percent of the households living in
the balance of Oakland County, also with the financial capacities to rent or purchase new or
existing market-rate dwelling units, are likely to move to a residence within the city each
year.
•
The adjacent draw area, covering households with the potential to move to the City of
Pontiac from Wayne and Macomb Counties. Households moving from these two counties
comprise just under half of total Oakland County in-migration.
•
The national draw area, covering households with the potential to move to the City of
Pontiac from all other U.S. counties. Up to 1,000 households, with the financial capacities
to rent or purchase new or existing market-rate dwelling units, are likely to move into the
City of Pontiac from elsewhere in the United States each year; a small additional number
are households moving from outside the United States.
Anecdotal information obtained from real estate brokers, sales persons, leasing agents, and other
knowledgeable sources corresponded to the migration data.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 46
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Migration Methodology:
County-to-county migration is based on the year-to-year changes in the addresses shown on the
population of returns from the Internal Revenue Service Individual Master File system. Data on
migration patterns by county, or county equivalent, for the entire United States, include inflows
and outflows. The data include the number of returns (which can be used to approximate the
number of households), and the median and average incomes reported on the returns.
T ARGET M ARKET C LASSIFICATION OF C ITY AND C OUNTY H OUSEHOLDS—
Geo-demographic data obtained from Claritas, Inc. provide the framework for the categorization
of households, not only by demographic characteristics, but also by lifestyle preferences and socioeconomic factors. An appendix containing detailed descriptions of each of these target market
groups is provided along with the study.
Appendix One, Tables 2 and 3.
Target Market Classifications
Just under 40 percent, or 9,835 households, of the estimated 24,780 households currently living in
the City of Pontiac, have the capacity to rent or buy market-rate housing. The city’s 2006 median
income is estimated at $34,200, approximately 30 percent lower than the national median of
$48,800. Median home value within the city is estimated at $96,500, just over 40 percent below
the national median of $161,600. More than 41 percent of Pontiac’s “market-rate” households are
classified as younger singles and couples, another 38.9 percent are traditional and non-traditional
families, and the remaining 20 percent are empty nesters and retirees. (See Appendix One, Table
2.)
Of the estimated 489,765 households currently living in Oakland County, up to 86.3 percent, or
422,650 households, have the capacity to rent or buy market-rate housing. Median income within
the county is estimated at $70,200, nearly 44 percent higher than the national median. Median
home value within Oakland County is estimated at $232,200, again, approximately 40 percent
above the national median. Nearly 40 percent of the county’s “market-rate” households can be
classified as traditional and non-traditional families, approximately 31.4 percent are empty
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 47
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
nesters and retirees, and 28.8 percent are younger singles and couples. (See Appendix One, Table
3.)
Target Market Methodology:
The proprietary target market methodology developed by Zimmerman/Volk Associates is an
analytical technique, using the PRIZM geo-demographic system, that establishes the optimum
market position for residential development of any property—from a specific site to an entire
political jurisdiction—through cluster analysis of households living within designated draw areas.
In contrast to conventional supply/demand analysis—which is based on supply-side dynamics and
baseline demographic projections—target market analysis establishes the optimum market
position derived from the housing and lifestyle preferences of households in the draw area and
within the framework of the local housing market context, even in locations where no close
comparables exist.
In geo-demographic segmentation, clusters of households (usually between 10 and 15) are grouped
according to a variety of significant factors, ranging from basic demographic characteristics, such
as income qualification and age, to less-frequently considered attributes such as mobility rates,
lifestyle patterns and compatibility issues. Zimmerman/Volk Associates has refined the analysis
of these household clusters through the correlation of more than 500 data points related to housing
preferences and consumer and lifestyle characteristics.
As a result of this process, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has identified 41 target market groups
with median incomes that enable most of the households within each group to qualify for marketrate housing. The most affluent of the 41 groups can afford the most expensive new ownership
units; the least prosperous are candidates for the least expensive existing rental apartments.
Once the draw areas for a property have been defined, then—through field investigation, analysis
of historic migration and development trends, and employment and commutation patterns—the
households within those areas are quantified using the target market methodology. The potential
market for new market-rate units is then determined by the correlation of a number of
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 48
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
factors—including, but not limited to: household mobility rates; median incomes; lifestyle
characteristics and housing preferences; the location of the site; and the competitive environment.
The end result of this series of filters is the optimum market position—by tenure, building
configuration and household type, including specific recommendations for unit sizes, rents and/or
prices—and projections of absorption within the local housing context.
D ETERMINATION OF THE P OTENTIAL M ARKET FOR THE C ITY OF P ONTIAC (M OBILITY
A NALYSIS )—
The mobility tables, individually and in summaries, indicate the number and type of households
that have the potential to move within or to the City of Pontiac in the year 2006. The total
number from each city/county is derived from historic migration trends; the number of households
from each group is based on each group’s mobility rate.
Appendix One, Table 4.
Internal Mobility (Households Moving Within the City of Pontiac)—
Zimmerman/Volk Associates uses U.S. Bureau of the Census data, combined with Claritas data,
to determine the number of households in each target market group that will move from one
residence to another within a specific jurisdiction in a given year (internal mobility).
Using these data, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has determined that up to 1,150 households
living in the City of Pontiac, and with the capacity to rent or purchase market-rate housing, have
the potential to move from one residence to another within the city this year. Nearly 49 percent
of these households are likely to be younger singles and couples (as characterized within six
Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ target market groups); another 30.3 percent are likely to be
traditional and non-traditional families (in seven market groups); and the remaining 13 percent are
likely to be empty nesters and retirees (in four market groups).
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 49
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Appendix One, Table 5.
External Mobility (Households Moving T o the City of Pontiac from the Balance of Oakland
County)—
The same sources of data are used to determine the number of households in each target market
group that will move from one area to another within the same county. Using these data, up to
2,400 households, currently living in the balance of Oakland County and with the capacity to rent
or purchase market-rate housing, have the potential to move from a residence in the county to a
residence in the City of Pontiac this year. Forty percent of these households are likely to be
younger singles and couples (in eight market groups); 31.3 percent are likely to be empty nesters
and retirees (in eight groups); and the remaining 28.8 percent are likely to be traditional and nontraditional families (in five groups).
Appendix One, Tables 6 and 7; Appendix Two, Tables 1 and 2.
External Mobility (Households Moving T o the City of Pontiac from Outside Oakland
County)—
These tables determine the number of households in each target market group living in each draw
area county that are likely to move to the City of Pontiac in 2006 (through a correlation of
Claritas data, U.S. Bureau of the Census data, and the Internal Revenue Service migration data).
Appendix One, Table 8.
Market Potential for the City of Pontiac—
Appendix One, Table 8 summarizes Appendix One, Tables 4 through 7. The numbers in the
Total column on page one of this table indicate the depth and breadth of the potential market for
new and existing market-rate dwelling units in the City of Pontiac in the year 2006 originating
from households currently living in the draw areas. Up to 5,700 households with the potential to
rent or purchase market-rate housing have the potential to move within or to the City of Pontiac
this year. Younger singles and couples are likely to account for more than 41 percent of these
households (in 10 market groups); another third are likely to be traditional and non-traditional
families (in nine groups); and 26.3 percent are likely to be empty nesters and retirees (in nine
groups).
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 50
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
The distribution of the draw areas as a percentage of the potential market for the City of Pontiac
is as follows:
Market Potential by Draw Area
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
City of Pontiac (Primary Draw Area):
Balance of Oakland County (Primary Draw Area):
Wayne and Macomb Counties (Adjacent Draw Area):
Balance of US (National Draw Area):
20.2%
42.1%
20.2%
17.5%
Total:
100.0%
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
D ETERMINATION OF THE P OTENTIAL M ARKET FOR D OWNTOWN P ONTIAC—
The total potential market for the new housing units to be developed within existing buildings or
new construction within Downtown Pontiac also includes the primary, adjacent, and national draw
areas. Zimmerman/Volk Associates uses U.S. Bureau of the Census data, combined with Claritas
data, to determine which target market groups, as well as how many households within each group,
are likely to move to Downtown Pontiac in a given year.
Appendix One, Tables 9 through 11.
Market Potential for Downtown Pontiac—
As derived by the target market methodology, up to 1,520 of the 5,700 households that represent
the market for new and existing housing units in the City of Pontiac are a market for new housing
units within Downtown Pontiac. (See Appendix One, Table 9.) Up to 48 percent of these
households are likely to be younger singles and couples (in eight market groups); another 35.5
percent are likely to be empty nesters and retirees (in seven groups); and just 16.4 percent are
likely to be traditional and non-traditional family households (in five groups).
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 51
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
The distribution of the draw areas as a percentage of the market for Downtown Pontiac is:
Market Potential by Draw Area
D OWNTOWN PONTIAC
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
City of Pontiac (Primary Draw Area):
Balance of Oakland County (Primary Draw Area):
Wayne and Macomb Counties (Adjacent Draw Area):
Balance of US (National Draw Area):
17.8%
44.7%
19.1%
18.4%
Total:
100.0%
SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2006.
The 1,520 draw area households that have the potential to move within or to Downtown Pontiac
this year have been categorized by tenure propensities to determine renter/owner ratios. Just over
30 percent of these households (or 460 households) comprise the potential market for new marketrate rentals. The remaining 70 percent (or 1,060 households) comprise the market for new marketrate for-sale (ownership) housing units. (See Appendix One, Table 10.)
Of these 1,060 households, 22.6 percent (or 240 households) comprise the market for multifamily for-sale units (condominium apartments and lofts); and another 18.9 percent (200
households) comprise the market for attached single-family (townhouse or duplex) units. The
remaining 58.5 percent (or 620 households) comprise the market for all ranges and densities of
single-family detached houses. (See Appendix One, Table 11.)
—Target Market Data—
Target market data are based on the Claritas PRIZM geo-demographic system, modified and
augmented by Zimmerman/Volk Associates as the basis for its proprietary target market
methodology. Target market data provides number of households by cluster aggregated into the
three main demographic categories—empty nesters and retirees; traditional and non-traditional
families; and younger singles and couples.
Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ target market classifications are updated periodically to reflect
the slow, but relentless change in the composition of American households. Because of the nature
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 52
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
of geo-demographic segmentation, a change in household classification is directly correlated with
a change in geography, i.e.—a move from one neighborhood condition to another. However, these
changes of classification can also reflect an alteration in one of three additional basic
characteristics:
•
Age;
•
Household composition; or
•
Economic status.
Age, of course, is the most predictable, and easily-defined of these changes.
Household
composition has also been relatively easy to define; recently, with the growth of non-traditional
households, however, definitions of a family have had to be expanded and parsed into more
highly-refined segments. Economic status remains clearly defined through measures of annual
income and household wealth.
A change in classification is rarely induced by a change in just one of the four basic characteristics.
This is one reason that the target household categories are so highly refined: they take in multiple
characteristics. Even so, there are some rough equivalents in household types as they move from
one neighborhood condition to another. There is, for example, a strong correlation between the
Suburban Achievers and the Urban Achievers; a move by the Suburban Achievers to the urban core
can make them Urban Achievers, if the move is accompanied by an upward move in socioeconomic status. In contrast, Suburban Achievers who move up socio-economically, but remain
within the metropolitan suburbs may become Fast-Track Professionals or The VIPs.
Household Classification Methodology:
Household classifications are based on the Claritas PRIZM geo-demographic segmentation
system, which was established in 1974 and is the most widely-used neighborhood target
marketing system in the United States. Claritas uses 15 unique clustering algorithms to define
various domains of affluence and settlement density. These algorithms isolate the key factors in
each density-affluence domain that accounted for the most statistical difference among
neighborhoods within that group.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
M ARKET P OSITION ANALYSIS
Page 53
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Over the past 18 years, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has augmented the PRIZM cluster system for
use within the company’s proprietary target market methodology specific to housing and
neighborhood preferences, with additional algorithms, correlation with geo-coded consumer data,
aggregation of clusters by broad household definition, and unique cluster names. For purposes of
this study, only those household groups with median incomes that enable most of the households
within each group to qualify for market-rate housing are included in the tables.
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908-735-6336 • 908-735-4751 facsimile
info@ZVA.cc • www.ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
A SSUMPTIONS AND L IMITATIONS —
Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the data contained within this analysis.
Demographic and economic estimates and projections have been obtained from government
agencies at the national, state, and county levels. Market information has been obtained from
sources presumed to be reliable, including developers, owners, and/or sales agents. However,
this information cannot be warranted by Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
While the
methodology employed in this analysis allows for a margin of error in base data, it is
assumed that the market data and government estimates and projections are substantially
accurate.
Absorption scenarios are based upon the assumption that a normal economic environment will
prevail in a relatively steady state during development of the subject property. Absorption
paces are likely to be slower during recessionary periods and faster during periods of recovery
and high growth. Absorption scenarios are also predicated on the assumption that the product
recommendations will be implemented generally as outlined in this report and that the
developer will apply high-caliber design, construction, marketing, and management techniques
to the development of the property.
Recommendations are subject to compliance with all applicable regulations.
accounting, tax, and legal matters should be substantiated by appropriate counsel.
o
Relevant
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908 735-6336 • 908 735-4751 facsimile
www.ZVA.cc • info@ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
R IGHTS AND STUDY O WNERSHIP —
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. retains all rights, title and interest in the methodology and
target market descriptions contained within this study. The specific findings of the analysis are
the property of the client and can be distributed at the client’s discretion.
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006
Appendix Three
TARGET MARKET DESCRIPTIONS
MARKET POSITION ANALYSIS
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac,
Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Conducted by
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908-735-6336 • 908-735-4751 facsimile
info@ZVA.cc • www.ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
T ARGET M ARKET D ESCRIPTIONS
1
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES—Metropolitan Cities
The Urban Establishment
3
Cosmopolitan Couples
4
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
5
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES—Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
7
Middle-Class Move-Downs
8
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES—Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
10
Suburban Establishment
11
Affluent Empty Nesters
12
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
13
14
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES—Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
16
New Empty Nesters
17
RV Retirees
18
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES—Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
20
Multi-Cultural Families
21
Page ii
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES—Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
23
Multi-Ethnic Families
24
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES—Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
26
The Entrepreneurs
27
Nouveau Money
28
Late-Nest Suburbanites
29
Full-Nest Suburbanites
30
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
31
T RADITIONAL & NON -TRADITIONAL F AMILIES—Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
33
Full-Nest Exurbanites
34
New-Town Families
35
Small-Town Families
36
Blue-Collar Families
37
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES—Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
39
New Bohemians
40
Urban Achievers
41
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES—Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
43
Twentysomethings
44
Small-City Singles
45
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page iii
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES—Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
47
Upscale Suburban Couples
48
Suburban Achievers
49
No-Nest Suburbanites
50
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES—Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
52
Cross-Training Couples
53
Exurban Suburbanites
54
R IGHTS AND S TUDY O WNERSHIP
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Page 1
T ARGET M ARKET D ESCRIPTIONS
The following target market lifestyle and values profiles have been developed by Zimmerman/Volk
Associates, Inc., based on United States Bureau of Census data, Claritas’ geo-demographic
segmentation, and Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ lifestyle and housing correlation methodology.
The target market lifestyle and values profiles have been devised for use by design, marketing, and
merchandising professionals in perfecting the position of new housing within the marketplace.
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 2
o
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES
– Metropolitan Cities –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 3
T HE U RBAN E STABLISHMENT
Configuration: Empty-nest couples; older singles (divorced and widowed).
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—45 to 64.
Characteristics: Affluent, educated and sophisticated older couples.
Success achieved through intelligence, connections and contacts.
Over two-thirds attended or graduated from college or have advanced
degrees.
High-ranking professionals in medicine, law, business and finance; arts and
entertainment.
Housing preferences: Exclusive urban neighborhoods.
Elegant mansions, townhouses (the city version) and condominiums (the highrise version).
Nearly one quarter lease large, luxurious apartments.
Consumption patterns: Chauffeured car; drive a Jaguar.
Investment property.
Undercounter wine cellar.
Watch Washington Week In Review.
Read The Wall Street Journal.
Icons: Mark Cross appointment book; the blue Tiffany box and the red Cartier box.

“Luxury must be comfortable, otherwise it is not luxury.”
— Coco Chanel

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 4
C OSMOPOLITAN C OUPLES
Configuration: Empty-nest couples; widows and widowers.
Average household size—1 and 2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—55 and older.
Characteristics: Multi-ethnic neighborhoods, including white, African-American, Latino and
Asian residents.
Leisure-intensive lifestyles.
College-educated.
Lawyers, administrators, financial analysts.
Housing preferences: Vibrant urban neighborhoods built before World War II.
High-rises and rowhouses; detached houses on urban lots.
Nearly three-quarters own their homes.
Consumption patterns: Lincoln Town Car.
Play the lottery.
Avid theater-goers.
Watch People’s Court.
Read Time.
Icons: Theater tickets; lottery tickets.

“Join the United States and join the family–
But not much in between unless a college.”
– Robert Frost

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 5
M ULTI -E THNIC E MPTY N ESTERS
Configuration: Older couples; empty nesters, or with adult children still living at home.
Average household size—2 to 3 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—55 and up.
Characteristics: Middle-class African-American, Latino and Asian households.
Nearly 60 percent graduated high school; another 35 percent have some
college education.
More than a quarter are retired; the remainder are still working.
Social services; health care employees; service workers; administrative
support.
Housing preferences: Rowhouses; mid- and high-rise apartments in urban neighborhoods.
Mix of long-time residents and newcomers.
Nearly 60 percent own their dwelling units, which they have owned for
several years.
Consumption patterns: Acura TL, Toyota Corolla.
Dancing monthly.
Volunteer and community involvement.
Watch Court TV.
Read Prevention.
Icons: Collection of classic jazz; framed photograph of Martin Luther King.

“Before a group can enter the open society,
it must first close ranks.”
– Stokely Carmichael and
Charles Vernon Hamilton

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 6
o
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES
– Small Cities/Satellite Cities –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 7
C OSMOPOLITAN E LITE
Configuration: Young empty-nesters; older families with college-aged children.
Average household size—2 to 3 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—45 to 64.
Characteristics: Upper-middle- to high-income empty-nesters—leading-edge Baby Boomers.
Established cultural elite of America’s smaller cities.
Well educated—more than two-thirds attended or graduated from college,
or received professional degrees.
Prominent lawyers, doctors, professors and executives in local management,
finance, and technical companies.
Housing preferences: Single-family neighborhoods within and outside smaller cities.
Detached houses in wealthy enclaves, often near the country club.
More than 38 percent have moved within the past five years.
Consumption patterns: German SUVs—BMW for her, Mercedes-Benz for him—and the Porsche
Boxster for fun.
Country club board member.
Involvement in civic activities—historic preservation, beautification
programs.
Watch Great Performances.
Read Wine Spectator.
Icons: Automated home theatre; symphony subscription tickets.

“Once discover comfort, there is no turning back.”
– Mason Cooley

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 8
MIDDLE-CLASS MOVE-DOWNS
Configuration: Older married couples, widows/widowers, divorcés/divorcées.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—55 plus.
Characteristics: Older couples in the middle of the socio-economic scale.
Some members of this group have already retired.
Most are high school graduates; some attended college.
Middle managers; social service workers; librarians; sales.
Housing preferences: Mid-sized satellite cities.
Moderate-value bungalows and ranches; new townhouses as move-down
alternatives.
Nearly three-quarters of these households own their homes.
Consumption patterns: Toyota Camry.
Bird watching.
Adult education courses.
Watch Golf network.
Read AARP The Magazine
Icons: Audubon membership; upright piano.

“So always look for the silver lining
And try to find the sunny side of life.”
– P.G. Wodehouse

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 9
o
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES
– Metropolitan Suburbs –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 10
OLD MONEY
Configuration: Empty-nest couples; some with college-aged children.
Average household size—2 to 3 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—50 to 74.
Characteristics: Upper crust, wealthy American families—one in 10 is a multi-millionaire.
Heirs to “old money;” accustomed to privilege and luxury.
Highly educated, with college and graduate degrees.
Judges; medical specialists; chief executive officers.
Housing preferences: Older metropolitan suburban fringe areas.
Estate homes in high-prestige neighborhoods; secluded older estates.
Attached units for resort homes or urban pieds-à-terre.
Consumption patterns: A collection of thoroughbred automobiles.
Personal services to cater to their needs.
Theater; classical music.
Sailing; tennis.
World travel; extended visits to Europe.
Watch Nightly Business Report.
Read Architectural Digest.
Icons: Threadbare Oriental carpets; chipped heirloom Waterford crystal.

“They [the very rich] are different from you and me.”
– F. Scott Fitzgerald

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 11
SUBURBAN E STABLISHMENT
Configuration: Mature empty-nest couples.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—50 and older.
Characteristics: Upper-middle-income couples in their peak earning years.
Parents of the trailing-edge Baby Boomers.
More than half attended or graduated from college.
Mostly white-collar managers and professionals, with many years at the same
firm.
Housing preferences: Vintage 1960s suburban subdivisions.
Their originally middle-class detached houses have been upgraded over the
years to match their growing income and status.
Many still live in the houses they bought new, 30 or 40 years ago; when they
move, they downsize to an apartment downtown or a resort
condominium.
Consumption patterns: VW Beetle; PT Cruiser; Chrysler 300.
Resort cruises.
Theater and museum attendees.
Listen to jazz.
Read Consumer Digest.
Icons: A timeshare condo; Boston Market take-out.

“Just enjoy your ice cream while it’s on your plate.”
– Thornton Wilder

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 12
A FFLUENT E MPTY N ESTERS
Configuration: Married empty-nest couples.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—55 and older.
Characteristics: Older established couples, often with two incomes.
Significant financial resources—untapped equity in their homes.
Half attended or graduated from college.
Small-business owners; corporate officers; sales directors.
Housing preferences: Eighty-five percent own their homes.
Detached houses with high property values.
Likely to move to or near downtown when last child has left home.
Consumption patterns: Buick Park Avenue; Cadillac CTS.
An active life of travel, leisure, and entertainment.
All-inclusive European travel packages.
Watch Charlie Rose.
Read Smithsonian.
Icons: Well-thumbed Italian phrasebook; AAA membership card.

“We made our money the old-fashioned way; we earned it.”
– Variation on Advertisement

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 13
M AINSTREAM R ETIREES
Configuration: Retired singles and couples.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—65 and older.
Characteristics: Middle- to upper-middle-income households.
Prefer to spend their “golden years” around people of all ages.
Nearly half attended or graduated from college.
Country lawyers, doctors, and shopkeepers.
Housing preferences: Small suburban towns.
Cottages; townhouses; condominiums.
High percentage of vacation/weekend homes.
Consumption patterns: Mercury Sable.
Golf; gardening; reading.
Museums of all kinds.
Watch This Old House.
Read House and Garden.
Icons: Cable TV guide; his ‘n’ her golf clubs.

“And love can come to everyone,
The best things in life are free.”
– Buddy De Sylva

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 14
M IDDLE -AMERICAN R ETIREES
Configuration: Retired couples and singles.
Average household size—1 to 2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—55 and older.
Characteristics: Middle-income households with middle-class sensibilities.
Family- and community-oriented.
Most are high school graduates; 10 percent graduated from college.
Former secretaries; accountants; small business owners.
Housing preferences: Older inner-ring suburbs.
Well-kept bungalows, ramblers, colonials.
More than three-quarters own their residences and the mortgage is paid off.
Consumption patterns: Mercury Grand Marquis.
Bowling.
Membership in a fraternal order.
Watch NBC Today Show.
Read Ladies Home Journal.
Icons: Frank Sinatra records; his ‘n’ hers bowling balls.

“If I’d known I was going to live this long,
I’d have taken better care of myself.”
– Eubie Blake

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 15
o
E MPTY N ESTERS & RETIREES
– Town & Country/Exurbs –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 16
S MALL -T OWN E STABLISHMENT
Configuration: Empty-nest couples.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—50 and older.
Characteristics: The leading citizens of small-town communities.
Nearly half have college or graduate degrees.
Most have annual incomes of $100,000 or more.
Small-town lawyers, doctors, bankers, chief executives.
Housing preferences: Affluent rural enclaves.
Large single-family houses in the country; second homes in the city.
High-tech homes.
Consumption patterns: Older Cadillac de Ville in showroom condition.
Belong to a country club.
Cross-country skiing.
Watch HBO.
Read Country Living.
Icons: Investment portfolios; Caribbean cruises.

“The life of the wealthy is one long Sunday.”
– Anton Chekhov

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 17
N EW E MPTY N ESTERS
Configuration: Empty-nest couples; a small percentage have a youngest child still at home.
Average household size—2 to 3 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—45 to 60.
Characteristics: Middle-aged and upper-middle-class.
Dual-income households.
High disposable income.
Small business owners; local homebuilders.
Housing preferences: Semi-rural small towns fast becoming middle-class suburbs.
The nicest house on the nicest street in town.
A large percentage own timeshares or second homes.
Consumption patterns: Ford Explorer.
Belong to a civic organization.
Dining out.
Watch Fox News.
Read U.S. News and World Report.
Icons: Travel club; Chamber of commerce membership.

“In the small town each citizen had done something
in his own way to build the community”
– Daniel J. Boorstin

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 18
RV RETIREES
Configuration: Older couples.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—55 and older.
Characteristics: Empty-nest, middle-income households.
Former policemen, firemen, repairmen, technicians.
High-school grads; a third went to college.
Most are retired or nearing retirement.
Housing preferences: Detached houses in small towns.
Most stay in their homes, but a few choose to retire in resort locations.
More than 20 percent are still living in the same house they bought when they
got married.
Consumption patterns: Buick Lucerne.
Easy-listening tapes.
Recreational vehicles; camping equipment.
Watch the National Geographic Channel.
Read Country Home.
Icons: Winnebago; Wal-Mart

“To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive.”
– Robert Louis Stevenson

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 19
o
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES
– Metropolitan Cities –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 20
F ULL -N EST U RBANITES
Configuration: Traditional and non-traditional families; multi-generational households.
Average household size—4 to 5 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: Ethnically diverse, upper-middle-class.
Many immigrants, second-generation Americans.
Well-educated.
Multi-racial, multi-lingual.
White-collar office and “knowledge” workers; government and arts.
Housing preferences: Single-family, duplexes or apartments in urban neighborhoods.
Relatively settled—more than half have lived in the same dwelling for more
than five years.
Just under two-thirds own their homes.
Consumption patterns: Toyota Sienna.
Low-fat food and diet drinks.
Foreign movies.
Watch Good Morning America.
Read People.
Icons: Kate Spade pocketbook; transit card.

“America, the land of unlimited possibilities.”
– Ludwig Max Goldberger

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 21
M ULTI-CULTURAL FAMILIES
Configuration: Families with several children; single-parent families.
Average household size—5 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: Middle-income immigrant families.
High-school graduates.
First-generation Americans.
Jobs range from day laborers to management professionals.
Housing preferences: Older urban rowhouse and bungalow neighborhoods.
Half own, half rent their dwelling units.
Dream of moving to larger houses in more affluent neighborhoods.
Consumption patterns: Public transportation.
Bodegas; Czech bakeries; Mexican restaurants; German breweries; Pizzerias.
Foreign-language newspapers.
Watch Cops.
Read Us.
Icons: Blue Cult jeans; U.S. Savings Bonds.

“America is God’s crucible, the great melting pot where all
the races are melting and reforming.”
– Israel Zangwill

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 22
o
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES
– Small Cities/Satellite Cities –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 23
U NIBOX TRANSFEREES
Configuration: Families with pre-school and school-aged children.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 50.
Characteristics: Upper-middle-income families; both spouses work.
One-third graduated from college.
On the move; frequent transfers for better jobs, better pay.
Career-oriented middle managers; many are computer literate with home
offices.
Housing preferences: Single-family detached houses in brand-new subdivisions just outside
satellite cities.
Two-story uniboxes, easy to resell when the next transfer comes.
More than 22 percent move every year.
Consumption patterns: Chevy Suburban.
Cleaning service; laundry service; 12-hour babysitters.
Soccer Moms and Dads.
Watch Nickolodean.
Read Forbes.
Icons: Blackberries; platinum frequent flyer cards.

“They change their clime, not their disposition.”
– Horace

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 24
M ULTI -E THNIC F AMILIES
Configuration: Middle-class families with children.
Average household size—4-plus persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 34.
Characteristics: A large percentage of Spanish-speaking households; many recent immigrants
from the Near and Far East.
More than75 percent finished high school.
A high percentage are in the Armed Forces.
Construction workers; maintenance workers; government employees.
Housing preferences: Low-rise apartments in older neighborhoods; rowhouses; cottages.
More than 35 percent are renters.
Highly mobile: more than half have moved within the last five years.
Consumption patterns: Ford Excursion.
Vibrant street life; sitting on the stoop chatting with the neighbors.
Social clubs.
Watch All My Children.
Read Soap Opera Weekly.
Icons: Fast-food containers; Home remodeling projects.

“Con pan y vino se anda el camino.
[With bread and wine you can walk your road.]”
– Proverb

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 25
o
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES
– Metropolitan Suburbs –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 26
T HE S OCIAL R EGISTER
Configuration: Older families with teen-aged children.
Average household size—4 to 5 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 54.
Characteristics: Very high-income families.
Pre-empty nesters; professional parents who had their children in their 30s.
Three-quarters are college-educated; more than a quarter with advanced
degrees.
Prominent professionals and executives in local business, finance, law, and
communications industries.
Housing preferences: Million-dollar homes.
Detached houses in wealthy enclaves, often near the country club.
More than 40 percent have moved within the past five years.
Consumption patterns: Mom (Chevrolet Suburban), Dad (Mercedes-Benz), and the kids(Volkswagon
Jetta and a Jeep).
Family membership at the country club.
Involvement in civic activities—historic preservation, beautification
programs.
Watch Antiques Roadshow.
Read Bon Appetit.
Icons: Flat-screen TV in the multi-media room; family membership in English
Heritage.

“Wealth is not without its advantages.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 27
T HE E NTREPRENEURS
Configuration: Traditional families with one or two children.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 54.
Characteristics: Wealthy, dual-income families.
High percentage of home-based businesses.
Well educated—more than 53 percent hold college or graduate degrees.
Business owners, executives and white-collar professionals.
Housing preferences: Detached houses in the suburbs; high-rise condominiums in the city.
More than half have moved within the past five years.
Very high property values.
Consumption patterns: A Lincoln Navigator and a Porsche.
Family-oriented activities.
Color-coded calendar for family members.
Watch HBO.
Read Forbes Small Business.
Icons: The wireless home office; family scuba gear.

“A creative economy is the fuel of magnificence.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 28
NOUVEAU MONEY
Configuration: Young families with children.
Average household size—5 or more persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 34.
Characteristics: Big spenders with high incomes.
Highly mobile; two-thirds moved within the past five years.
Highly-educated; dot-com millionaires.
Investment analysts; business owners; high-tech careers.
Housing preferences: New-money subdivisions.
McMansions in the suburbs; penthouses in the city.
Second homes in resort areas.
Consumption patterns: Cadillac Escalade for shopping; Hummer H2.
Downhill skiing.
Designer logo clothes.
Watch The Cartoon Network.
Read House & Garden.
Icons: Tiered-seating home theater; Centurion Black American Express card.

“A sumptuous dwelling the rich man hath.”
– Mary Elizabeth Hewitt

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 29
L ATE -N EST S UBURBANITES
Configuration: Older families with younger children.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—40 to 55.
Characteristics: Middle-aged Baby Boomers who married late.
High percentage of college graduates.
White-collar employment.
Technicians; financial specialists; accountants; engineers.
Housing preferences: Suburban subdivisions outside fast-growing metro areas.
Detached houses—two-story colonials.
More than 80 percent own their homes, but have just started payments on a
mortgage.
Consumption patterns: Station wagons and minivans.
Kids’ toys.
Family vacations.
Watch Commander in Chief.
Read Business Week.
Icons: Cell phone family plan; Whole Foods.

“Welcome to the great American two-career family
and pass the aspirin, please.”
– Anastasia Toufexis

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 30
FULL-N EST SUBURBANITES
Configuration: Families with two or more children.
Average household size—4-plus persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 44; 45 to 54.
Characteristics: Upper-middle-income suburban families.
Significant numbers of stay-at-home Moms.
Well educated—more than two-thirds went to college.
Officers of small corporations; sales managers; communications and
technology.
Housing preferences: Upscale suburban subdivisions.
Nearly two-thirds have moved within the past six years.
Relatively high property values.
Consumption patterns: Practical family automobiles—mini-vans for carpooling (e.g.—Honda
Odyssey) and SUVs for show (e.g.—Ford Expedition).
Family-oriented activities.
Frequent visits to Disney World.
Watch Nickelodeon.
Read Parenting.
Icons: Weber barbecue grill; “My child is an honor student at . . .” bumper stickers.

“Hail wedded love, mysterious law, true source of human offspring.”
– John Milton

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 31
BLUE-COLLAR BUTTON-DOWNS
Configuration: Married couples with several children.
Average household size—5+ persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: Ethnically diverse, middle-class households with working-class values.
Multi-generational households.
Most are high-school grads; many also attended two-year colleges or
technical schools.
Military families, policemen/firemen, technical or sales workers.
Housing preferences: Older single-family detached houses in post-war subdivisions of “carpenter
capes” and ranches.
A significant number live in townhouses, both rental and ownership.
Two-thirds own their homes.
Consumption patterns: American cars, e.g.—Ford Focus.
Community-oriented activities.
Do-it-yourself home and auto maintenance.
Watch soap operas.
Read Reader’s Digest.
Icons: Above-ground swimming pool; backyard gas grill.

“Nice work if you can get it,
And you can get it if you try.”
– Ira Gershwin

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 32
o
T RADITIONAL & NON -T RADITIONAL F AMILIES
– Town & Country/Exurbs –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 33
EX-URBAN ELITE
Configuration: Married couples with children.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 54.
Characteristics: Wealthy families living in private luxury.
Highly-educated; 80 percent went to college.
Former residents of cities or metropolitan suburbs who have “escaped” urban
stress.
Executives; professionals; entrepreneurs; freelance consulting businesses.
Housing preferences: “Retreat” locations—the Maine coast; horse farms in Virginia; Taos, New
Mexico.
“Estate” homes—custom if new; restored if old.
Among the highest home values in the nation.
Consumption patterns: Saabs, Audis, Volvos.
Country club sports.
The children attend boarding school.
Watch The Late Show With David Letterman.
Read Martha Stewart Living.
Icons: Ralph Lauren; private stables.

“Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learn’d to stray;
Along the cool sequester’d vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.”
– Thomas Gray

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 34
FULL-NEST EXURBANITES
Configuration: Older couples with children.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 44; 45 to 54.
Characteristics: Upper-middle-income families who relocate frequently.
Family- and outdoor-oriented.
Well educated, with college degrees.
Professional and managerial workers, following high-tech companies.
Housing preferences: Rural, upscale boomtowns.
Detached houses in new subdivisions, often on recently-developed farmland.
Close to corporations located along major highway corridors.
Consumption patterns: GMC Yukon.
Camping in state forests; hiking; backpacking; canoeing.
Video cameras, DVDs, flat-screen TVs and TiVo.
Watch Home Improvement reruns.
Read Country Living.
Icons: Garden tiller; Newcomers Club membership.

“A piece of land not so very large, which would contain a garden,
and near the house a spring of ever-flowing water,
and beyond these a bit of wood.”
– Horace

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 35
N EW-TOWN FAMILIES
Configuration: Families with children of all ages.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: Dual-income families.
High-school graduates, half have gone to local universities.
Cost-conscious early adopters.
Local white- and blue-collar occupations.
Housing preferences: New subdivisions, both infill and greenfields.
New ranches, capes, cottages, bungalows, colonials.
Nearly 80 percent own their homes, which are mortgaged to the hilt.
Consumption patterns: Chrysler Town and Country.
Volunteers at schools and sporting clubs.
Little League baseball; children’s soccer and football leagues.
Watch The Disney Channel.
Read Woman’s World.
Icons: Home fitness equipment; maxed-out credit cards.

“The root of the state is in the family.”
– Mencius

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 36
SMALL -TOWN F AMILIES
Configuration: Married couples, with two or three school-aged children.
Average household size—4-5 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 44.
Characteristics: Solid middle-class citizens.
High-school graduates.
Raising kids in an old-fashioned way of life.
Blue-collar and farming-related employment.
Housing preferences: Rural middle-class towns.
Farmhouses, of the front-porch variety; ranches, ramblers, and mobile homes.
Predominantly homeowners.
Consumption patterns: Chevy Silverado.
Friday night football at the local high school.
Boats and campers for fishing and hunting.
Watch Family Channel.
Read Family Circle.
Icons: American flag; bib overalls.

“No Farmers, No Food.”
– Bumper Sticker

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 37
BLUE-COLLAR FAMILIES
Configuration: Married couples with school-age children.
Average household size—4 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 54.
Characteristics: Middle-income, middle-class households.
High-school educated.
“Old-fashioned” outdoor-oriented lifestyles.
Farmers; blue-collar workers, many in the construction industry; machinists.
Housing preferences: Small towns and villages
Modest detached houses or mobile homes; ranch houses.
Over 80 percent own their homes.
Consumption patterns: Chevrolet, Dodge and Ford 4x4 pickup trucks with CD players and gun
racks.
Deer hunting; target shooting.
Watch NASCAR races.
Read American Rifleman.
Icons: Camouflage hunting outfit; professional chain saw.

“When you’re running down our country, man,
You’re walking on the fightin’ side of me.”
– Merle Haggard

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 38
o
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES
– Metropolitan Cities –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 39
E-TYPES
Configuration: Mostly singles, some couples, just a few years out of college.
Average household size—1 to 2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: High-living, high-energy city-dwellers.
More than 25 percent hold advanced degrees.
Multi-ethnic, with significant numbers of Asians.
E-businesses, information technologies.
Housing preferences: Upscale urban neighborhoods, often near universities.
Half rent; half own urban apartments.
Median home value is second highest in the nation.
Consumption patterns: Convertibles, from Beetle to Mercedes.
Everything on-line.
Frequent movers.
Listen to National Public Radio.
Read Wired.
Icons: Bandwidth; IPO red herring.

“In the future, everything will be digital”
– Bill Gates

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 40
N EW BOHEMIANS
Configuration: Mostly singles; some couples.
Average household size—1 person.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 40.
Characteristics: Unconventional, ethnically-diverse, upper-middle-income households.
“Politically correct” college graduates.
The social and political avant-garde; one-third are gay.
Executives; students; actors; artists; writers; boutique owners; public-interest
advocates.
Housing preferences: In-town and downtown urban neighborhoods.
Three-quarters rent; the rest own flats in brownstones, apartment houses, and
converted lofts.
Consumption patterns: Transit cards; Audi A4.
Early adaptors.
Poetry readings and gallery openings.
Watch Family Guy.
Read Vanity Fair.
Icons: Jean-Michèl Basquiat; state-of the-art haircuts.

“Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger.”
– Abbie Hoffman

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 41
URBAN ACHIEVERS
Configuration: Mostly singles, some couples.
Average household size—1.5 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—21 to 30.
Characteristics: Well-educated middle- to upper-middle-class households.
One-third are foreign-born.
Ethnically diverse; many are recent immigrants.
Students; junior administrators; entertainment and media occupations.
Housing preferences: Diverse urban neighborhoods.
More than 80 percent are renters.
Lofts, apartments and townhouses.
Consumption patterns: Transit cards; VW Jetta.
Ethnic clubs and restaurants.
Imported food, newspapers, videos and CDs.
Watch Seinfeld reruns.
Read Fitness.
Icons: Running shoes with business suits; credit cards and green cards.

“¿Qué pasa, dude?”
– Greeting

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 42
o
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES
– Small Cities/Satellite Cities –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 43
T HE VIP S
Configuration: Couples and some singles.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 44.
Characteristics: Dual-income, dual-career couples.
Forty percent have college or post-graduate degrees.
Yesterday: Twentysomethings. Tomorrow: Nouveau Money.
White-collar professionals: executive vice presidents; department heads;
architects and engineers.
Housing preferences: Upper-middle-class neighborhoods in smaller cities.
New single-family detached homes in new subdivisions.
Upscale condos and townhouses in more urban areas.
Consumption patterns: BMW 5 series.
Downtown commuters.
Financial planning services.
Watch News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
Read Boating magazine.
Icons: Espresso/cappuccino maker; The RAZR phone.

“Power is the great aphrodisiac.”
– Henry Kissinger

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 44
T WENTYSOMETHINGS
Configuration: Mostly singles; couples.
Average household size—1 to 2 persons.
Predominant age ranges—20 to 30.
Characteristics: Middle-income singles and couples.
Recent college graduates who have moved to “edge city” areas to start their
careers.
Highly athletic, technologically advanced, active nightlife.
Starter positions in info-tech start-ups, public and private service industries.
Housing preferences: Fast-growing satellite cities; small-city suburbs.
Fifty-four percent rent lofts and apartments.
The 46 percent who are owners bought starter houses, townhouses, or
condominiums.
Consumption patterns: Old Volvos and BMWs.
Take-out, fast food, and happy hour grazing.
Health clubs and night clubs.
Watch Comedy Central.
Read Shape.
Icons: txt msg; Craig’s List.

“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes
You just might find
You get what you need.”
– Mick Jagger and Keith Richard

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 45
S MALL -C ITY S INGLES
Configuration: Mostly singles and some couples (cohabs), few children.
Average household size—1 to 2 persons.
Predominant age ranges—18 to 30.
Characteristics: Students and college graduates; the highly-educated professionals that teach
them.
Highly mobile—two-thirds have moved in the last five years.
Recent grads who’ve launched start-up companies; sales and white-collar
workers.
Housing preferences: College and university towns.
Sixty percent are renters in apartment complexes or houses.
Students often live off-campus.
Consumption patterns: Compact imports such as VW, Toyota.
Alternative music.
ATM card.
Watch MTV Punk’d.
Read Sports Illustrated.
Icons: Singles bars; Grateful Dead (same as it ever was) CDs or MP3s.

“Youth is wholly experimental.”
– Robert Louis Stevenson

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 46
o
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES
– Metropolitan Suburbs –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 47
FAST-TRACK PROFESSIONALS
Configuration: Singles and couples.
Average household size—1 to 2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 34.
Characteristics: Upper-middle-income households.
Type-A college grads.
Career- and lifestyle-oriented techies.
Employed by software and IT companies, communications firms, law
offices.
Housing preferences: Inner suburbs of large cities; downtowns of small cities.
Upscale condominiums, townhouses, and apartments.
Sixty percent own their residences.
Consumption patterns: BMW 3 series.
High-tech electronics.
Exercise equipment and health clubs.
Watch Will & Grace.
Read GQ.
Icons: Work week: Burberry; weekends: REI.

“Nothing succeeds like success.”
– Alexandre Dumas, père

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 48
UPSCALE SUBURBAN COUPLES
Configuration: Married couples, few children.
Average household size—2.1 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: Well-educated suburban couples.
Predominantly white and Asian households.
Management, computer, business and financial specialists.
Housing preferences: Close-in suburbs.
Detached residences in small new housing developments, many at cluster
densities.
Colonial, Victorian, and Georgian architecture.
Consumption patterns: Chevy TrailBlazer.
DVD movie collection.
Home recycling center.
Watch ESPN.
Read Entertainment Weekly.
Icons: Labrador Retriever; Plasma TV.

“The home should be the treasure chest of living”
– Le Corbusier

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 49
SUBURBAN ACHIEVERS
Configuration: Mostly singles, some couples.
Average household size—1.5 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—21 to 34.
Characteristics: More than 70 percent have moved in the past five years.
Recent college grads.
High-tech employment; entertainment, sports and media jobs.
White-collar workers looking for upward mobility.
Housing preferences: Older suburbs near the big city.
One-third own their homes—soft lofts and townhouses.
Two-thirds are renters living in suburban apartment complexes.
Consumption patterns: Mazda; Hyundai.
Shopping at the malls.
Commute to downtown.
Watch That ’70s Show.
Read Rolling Stone.
Icons: Hooters T-shirt; Sony Vaio.

“What’s up?!?”
– Greeting

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 50
N O -N EST S UBURBANITES
Configuration: Mostly married couples, some singles.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—30 to 40.
Characteristics: Generation X households.
Half attended or graduated from college.
Predominantly white.
Teachers, hospital workers, white-collar and clerical employment.
Housing preferences: Old and new suburbia.
Townhouses and single-family houses.
Nearly 70 percent own their homes.
Consumption patterns: Nissan Xterra.
Home-delivery meals.
Huge video collection.
Watch Saturday Night Live.
Read Time.
Icons: Treadmill; Trivial Pursuit.

“You will be safest in the middle.”
– Ovid

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 51
o
YOUNGER SINGLES & COUPLES
– Town & Country/Exurbs –
o
© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 52
EX-URBAN POWER COUPLES
Configuration: Married couples, no children.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—35 to 54.
Characteristics: Well-educated upper-income urban-exile couples.
Urban tastes in a rural environment.
High-powered jobs/laid-back leisure.
Housing preferences: An hour’s drive from the closest metro in scenic, formerly rural areas.
Large detached residences in small new housing developments, many at
cluster densities.
Home office.
Consumption patterns: Porsche Cayenne.
Caribbean travel.
Chocolate labradors.
Watch NBC Nightly News.
Read The Wall Street Journal on line.
Icons: Six-burner professional range; e-Trade account.

“Knowledge is power”
– Francis Bacon

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 53
C ROSS -TRAINING C OUPLES
Configuration: Married couples, very few children.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: College-educated; 10 percent with advanced degrees.
Active engagement in outdoor activities.
Engineers; high school teachers; physical therapists.
Housing preferences: New construction in or just outside small towns.
Detached houses and townhouses close to their jobs.
Plenty of storage for their skis, bikes, kayaks.
Consumption patterns: Ford F360 Super Duty XLT truck.
Mountain biking.
Self-help books.
Watch Discovery Channel.
Read Outdoor Life.
Icons: Carabiners; Gore-Tex XCR pullover.

“Sport is the bloom and glow of a perfect health.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
Page 54
EXURBAN SUBURBANITES
Configuration: Singles and married couples.
Average household size—2 persons.
Predominant age range of adults—25 to 44.
Characteristics: High-school graduates.
Middle-income households.
Employed in manufacturing and construction.
Housing preferences: Exurban towns that are growing rapidly.
Three-quarters own their homes.
Detached houses; duplexes; townhouses.
Consumption patterns: Chevy Equinox.
Fast food.
NASCAR races.
Watch The Speed Channel.
Read Sports Illustrated.
Icons: Dale Earnhardt; K-Mart.

“A hard-working man and a thrifty woman are the real treasures of any family.”
– Chinese Proverb

© ZIMMERMAN /V OLK ASSOCIATES , INC .
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908 735-6336 • 908 735-4751 facsimile
www.ZVA.cc • info@ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
R IGHTS AND STUDY O WNERSHIP —
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. retains all rights, title and interest in the methodology and
target market descriptions contained within this study. The specific findings of the analysis are
the property of the client and can be distributed at the client’s discretion.
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006
Appendices One And Two
TARGET MARKET TABLES
MARKET POSITION ANALYSIS
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac,
Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Conducted by
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
MARKET POSITION ANALYSIS
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Appendix One Tables
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Appendix One, Table 1
Page 1 of 3
Gross Annual Household In-Migration
Oakland County, Michigan
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
County of Origin
Wayne
Macomb
Genesee
Washtenaw
Livingston
APO/FPO/Foreign
Ingham
Cook, IL
Lapeer
Kent
St.Clair
Kalamazoo
Los Angeles, CA
Saginaw
Maricopa, AZ
Cuyahoga, OH
Monroe
San Diego, CA
Franklin, OH
Lucas, OH
Jackson
New York, NY
Du Page, IL
Bay
Orange, CA
Eaton
Isabella
Midland
Broward, FL
Palm Beach, FL
Grand Traverse
Clinton
Erie, NY
Harris, TX
Clark, NV
All Other Counties
Total In-Migration:
. . . . . 2000 . . . . .
Number Share
8,790
4,815
1,005
820
815
860
500
425
405
305
250
225
145
205
185
145
105
95
110
125
75
60
145
95
90
95
90
90
100
85
75
60
60
90
70
8,540
29.2%
16.0%
3.3%
2.7%
2.7%
2.9%
1.7%
1.4%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.2%
28.3%
30,150 100.0%
. . . . . 2001 . . . . .
Number Share
8,525
4,600
1,025
820
840
755
430
425
395
295
240
195
205
165
225
120
115
100
100
115
80
60
125
80
60
80
75
70
90
90
55
35
30
55
75
7,730
29.9%
16.2%
3.6%
2.9%
2.9%
2.7%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.8%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
27.1%
28,480 100.0%
. . . . . 2002 . . . . .
Number Share
8,465
4,540
980
795
725
665
395
425
330
270
225
205
185
130
155
130
80
110
100
105
65
70
100
65
70
75
90
70
80
85
55
45
25
65
65
7,360
27,400 100.0%
NOTE: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest five.
SOURCE: Internal Revenue Service;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
30.9%
16.6%
3.6%
2.9%
2.6%
2.4%
1.4%
1.6%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
26.9%
. . . . . 2003 . . . . .
Number Share
8,615
4,570
975
825
745
670
405
385
345
250
240
220
140
145
165
130
85
75
85
85
70
90
90
75
105
75
90
65
70
75
55
45
35
50
60
6,875
31.8%
16.9%
3.6%
3.0%
2.8%
2.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
25.4%
27,080 100.0%
. . . . . 2004 . . . . .
Number Share
8,615
4,395
925
815
695
665
450
420
335
265
200
195
180
150
135
110
95
95
85
85
85
80
75
75
75
75
70
70
70
65
65
60
60
60
60
6,550
32.5%
16.6%
3.5%
3.1%
2.6%
2.5%
1.7%
1.6%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
24.7%
26,505 100.0%
Appendix One, Table 1
Page 2 of 3
Gross Annual Household Out-Migration
Oakland County, Michigan
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
Destination County
Wayne
Macomb
Genesee
Washtenaw
Livingston
APO/FPO/Foreign
Ingham
Cook, IL
Lapeer
Kent
St.Clair
Kalamazoo
Los Angeles, CA
Saginaw
Maricopa, AZ
Cuyahoga, OH
Monroe
San Diego, CA
Franklin, OH
Lucas, OH
Jackson
New York, NY
Du Page, IL
Bay
Orange, CA
Eaton
Isabella
Midland
Broward, FL
Palm Beach, FL
Grand Traverse
Clinton
Erie, NY
Harris, TX
Clark, NV
All Other Counties
Total Out-Migration:
. . . . . 2000 . . . . .
Number Share
6,480
5,475
1,500
945
1,450
485
395
730
635
275
205
145
325
100
345
125
75
190
95
95
75
165
145
55
135
70
45
65
135
145
115
55
35
85
175
10,635
20.1%
17.0%
4.7%
2.9%
4.5%
1.5%
1.2%
2.3%
2.0%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
1.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.5%
0.5%
0.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
33.0%
32,205 100.0%
. . . . . 2001 . . . . .
Number Share
6,855
5,710
1,685
980
1,450
615
380
585
590
300
230
160
295
95
355
105
105
180
80
85
100
160
125
65
150
70
60
50
130
150
100
55
35
115
175
10,435
20.9%
17.4%
5.1%
3.0%
4.4%
1.9%
1.2%
1.8%
1.8%
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
0.9%
0.3%
1.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
31.8%
32,815 100.0%
. . . . . 2002 . . . . .
Number Share
6,410
5,420
1,590
915
1,160
540
370
560
515
270
285
150
320
120
310
100
85
165
100
80
70
170
100
50
115
75
60
50
125
130
110
55
30
80
165
9,530
30,380 100.0%
NOTE: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest five.
SOURCE: Internal Revenue Service;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
21.1%
17.8%
5.2%
3.0%
3.8%
1.8%
1.2%
1.8%
1.7%
0.9%
0.9%
0.5%
1.1%
0.4%
1.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.6%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.5%
31.4%
. . . . . 2003 . . . . .
Number Share
6,335
5,255
1,445
935
1,290
470
345
555
450
250
270
165
270
75
350
105
70
130
115
85
70
155
105
45
105
65
60
50
105
135
105
40
25
55
165
9,475
21.3%
17.7%
4.9%
3.1%
4.3%
1.6%
1.2%
1.9%
1.5%
0.8%
0.9%
0.6%
0.9%
0.3%
1.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.6%
31.9%
29,725 100.0%
. . . . . 2004 . . . . .
Number Share
6,295
5,115
1,405
875
1,260
490
310
615
455
255
170
165
290
90
360
105
80
165
100
80
75
200
90
55
125
65
55
50
110
135
90
45
35
80
165
9,925
21.0%
17.1%
4.7%
2.9%
4.2%
1.6%
1.0%
2.1%
1.5%
0.9%
0.6%
0.6%
1.0%
0.3%
1.2%
0.4%
0.3%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.6%
33.1%
29,980 100.0%
Appendix One, Table 1
Page 3 of 3
Net Annual Household Migration
Oakland County, Michigan
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004
County
. . . . . 2000 . . . . . . . . . . 2001 . . . . . . . . . . 2002 . . . . . . . . . . 2003 . . . . . . . . . . 2004 . . . . .
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Wayne
Macomb
Genesee
Washtenaw
Livingston
APO/FPO/Foreign
Ingham
Cook, IL
Lapeer
Kent
St.Clair
Kalamazoo
Los Angeles, CA
Saginaw
Maricopa, AZ
Cuyahoga, OH
Monroe
San Diego, CA
Franklin, OH
Lucas, OH
Jackson
New York, NY
Du Page, IL
Bay
Orange, CA
Eaton
Isabella
Midland
Broward, FL
Palm Beach, FL
Grand Traverse
Clinton
Erie, NY
Harris, TX
Clark, NV
All Other Counties
2,310
-660
-495
-125
-635
375
105
-305
-230
30
45
80
-180
105
-160
20
30
-95
15
30
0
-105
0
40
-45
25
45
25
-35
-60
-40
5
25
5
-105
-2,095
1,670
-1,110
-660
-160
-610
140
50
-160
-195
-5
10
35
-90
70
-130
15
10
-80
20
30
-20
-100
0
15
-90
10
15
20
-40
-60
-45
-20
-5
-60
-100
-2,705
2,055
-880
-610
-120
-435
125
25
-135
-185
0
-60
55
-135
10
-155
30
-5
-55
0
25
-5
-100
0
15
-45
0
30
20
-45
-45
-55
-10
-5
-15
-100
-2,170
2,280
-685
-470
-110
-545
200
60
-170
-105
0
-30
55
-130
70
-185
25
15
-55
-30
0
0
-65
-15
30
0
10
30
15
-35
-60
-50
5
10
-5
-105
-2,600
2,320
-720
-480
-60
-565
175
140
-195
-120
10
30
30
-110
60
-225
5
15
-70
-15
5
10
-120
-15
20
-50
10
15
20
-40
-70
-25
15
25
-20
-105
-3,375
Total Net Migration:
-2,055
-4,335
-2,980
-2,645
-3,475
NOTE: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest five.
SOURCE: Internal Revenue Service;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 2
Page 1 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Estimated
Share
1,970
20.0%
0
1,500
470
0
0.0%
15.3%
4.8%
0.0%
3,825
38.9%
0
2,350
1,475
0
0.0%
23.9%
15.0%
0.0%
4,040
41.1%
0
2,930
1,110
0
0.0%
29.8%
11.3%
0.0%
Total:
9,835
100.0%
Total City Households:
24,780
Classified Households As A Share
Of Total City Households:
39.7%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Younger
Singles & Couples
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Estimated Median Income:
Estimated National Median Income:
$34,200
$48,800
Estimated Median Home Value:
Estimated National Median Home Value:
$96,500
$161,600
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 2
Page 2 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Estimated
Share
Estimated
Median
Income
Estimated
Median
Home Value
1,970
20.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
485
1,015
1,500
4.9%
10.3%
15.3%
$91,900
$61,400
$213,000
$158,900
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
35
95
65
0
275
470
0.4%
1.0%
0.7%
0.0%
2.8%
4.8%
$264,800
$100,300
$100,200
$394,800
$217,400
$214,100
$59,600
$124,400
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 2
Page 3 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Estimated
Share
Estimated
Median
Income
Estimated
Median
Home Value
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
3,825
38.9%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
1,080
1,270
2,350
11.0%
12.9%
23.9%
$100,100
$61,500
$219,400
$139,500
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
35
205
115
135
485
500
1,475
0.4%
2.1%
1.2%
1.4%
4.9%
5.1%
15.0%
$235,100
$137,000
$128,700
$89,400
$88,100
$61,700
$332,500
$303,800
$293,600
$215,200
$211,900
$157,200
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 2
Page 4 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Younger
Single & Couples
Estimated
Share
4,040
41.1%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
960
820
1,150
2,930
9.8%
8.3%
11.7%
29.8%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
545
285
280
1,110
0.0%
5.5%
2.9%
2.8%
11.3%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Estimated
Median
Income
Estimated
Median
Home Value
$87,000
$64,700
$55,400
$189,100
$148,700
$140,600
$81,500
$63,100
$62,200
$167,100
$150,300
$140,400
Appendix One, Table 3
Page 1 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
Oakland County, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Estimated
Share
132,765
31.4%
18,085
7,450
89,655
17,575
4.3%
1.8%
21.2%
4.2%
168,050
39.8%
18,840
8,770
106,175
34,265
4.5%
2.1%
25.1%
8.1%
121,835
28.8%
10,555
11,720
76,650
22,910
2.5%
2.8%
18.1%
5.4%
Total:
422,650
100.0%
Total County Households:
489,765
Classified Households As A Share
Of Total County Households:
86.3%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Younger
Singles & Couples
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Estimated Median Income:
Estimated National Median Income:
$70,200
$48,800
Estimated Median Home Value:
Estimated National Median Home Value:
$232,200
$161,600
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 3
Page 2 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Estimated
Share
Estimated
Median
Income
Estimated
Median
Home Value
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
132,765
31.4%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
8,300
4,575
5,210
18,085
2.0%
1.1%
1.2%
4.3%
$117,700
$92,900
$75,300
$326,200
$283,700
$215,800
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
4,025
3,425
7,450
1.0%
0.8%
1.8%
$93,400
$62,400
$214,500
$160,000
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
36,385
19,940
16,105
16,655
570
89,655
8.6%
4.7%
3.8%
3.9%
0.1%
21.2%
$269,200
$100,900
$100,400
$78,300
$60,600
$397,600
$219,000
$215,600
$138,100
$125,300
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
8,900
4,190
4,485
17,575
2.1%
1.0%
1.1%
4.2%
$101,100
$86,600
$67,000
$203,100
$177,900
$158,600
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 3
Page 3 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Estimated
Share
Estimated
Median
Income
Estimated
Median
Home Value
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
168,050
39.8%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
14,080
4,760
18,840
3.3%
1.1%
4.5%
$105,000
$69,700
$362,300
$213,600
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
6,350
2,420
8,770
1.5%
0.6%
2.1%
$100,800
$62,600
$221,000
$140,500
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
18,765
32,610
20,020
11,020
15,160
8,600
106,175
4.4%
7.7%
4.7%
2.6%
3.6%
2.0%
25.1%
$239,100
$139,300
$130,800
$90,900
$89,600
$62,700
$334,900
$305,900
$295,700
$216,800
$213,400
$158,400
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
18,565
4,540
5,655
900
4,605
34,265
4.4%
1.1%
1.3%
0.2%
1.1%
8.1%
$128,000
$91,400
$69,200
$68,200
$65,200
$291,000
$212,600
$161,500
$129,200
$106,300
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 3
Page 4 of 4
2006 Household Classification by Market Groups
Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Younger
Single & Couples
Estimated
Share
Estimated
Median
Income
Estimated
Median
Home Value
121,835
28.8%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
5,795
2,345
2,415
10,555
1.4%
0.6%
0.6%
2.5%
$115,500
$77,400
$61,800
$371,100
$252,900
$187,400
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
6,450
3,010
2,260
11,720
1.5%
0.7%
0.5%
2.8%
$88,400
$65,800
$56,300
$190,400
$149,800
$141,600
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
15,550
26,420
21,580
13,100
76,650
3.7%
6.3%
5.1%
3.1%
18.1%
$92,100
$82,900
$64,100
$63,200
$191,500
$168,300
$151,300
$141,400
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
13,070
7,390
2,450
22,910
3.1%
1.7%
0.6%
5.4%
$104,200
$71,000
$52,900
$266,600
$142,800
$125,400
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 4
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Estimated
Number
Potential
Share of
Potential
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
1,970
150
13.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
0
1,500
470
0
0
120
30
0
0.0%
10.4%
2.6%
0.0%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
3,825
440
38.3%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
0
2,350
1,475
0
0
260
180
0
0.0%
22.6%
15.7%
0.0%
Younger
Singles & Couples
4,040
560
48.7%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
0
2,930
1,110
0
0
420
140
0
0.0%
36.5%
12.2%
0.0%
Total:
9,835
1,150
100.0%
Total City Households:
24,780
Classified Households As A Share
Of Total City Households:
39.7%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 4
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Share of
Potential
Potential
1,970
150
13.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
485
1,015
1,500
30
90
120
2.6%
7.8%
10.4%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
35
95
65
0
275
470
0
10
0
0
20
30
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
2.6%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 4
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Share of
Potential
Potential
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
3,825
440
38.3%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
1,080
1,270
2,350
110
150
260
9.6%
13.0%
22.6%
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
35
205
115
135
485
500
1,475
0
20
20
10
70
60
180
0.0%
1.7%
1.7%
0.9%
6.1%
5.2%
15.7%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 4
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Younger
Singles & Couples
Share of
Potential
Potential
4,040
560
48.7%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
960
820
1,150
2,930
110
130
180
420
9.6%
11.3%
15.7%
36.5%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
545
285
280
1,110
0
60
50
30
140
0.0%
5.2%
4.3%
2.6%
12.2%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 5
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Balance of Oakland County, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Estimated
Number
Potential
Share of
Potential
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
130,795
750
31.3%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
18,085
5,950
89,185
17,575
230
60
460
0
9.6%
2.5%
19.2%
0.0%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
164,225
690
28.8%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
18,840
6,420
104,700
34,265
230
80
380
0
9.6%
3.3%
15.8%
0.0%
Younger
Singles & Couples
117,795
960
40.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
10,555
8,790
75,540
22,910
180
140
640
0
7.5%
5.8%
26.7%
0.0%
Total:
412,815
2,400
100.0%
Total County Households:
{Balance of County}
464,985
Classified Households As A Share Of
Total County Households:
{Balance of County}
88.8%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 5
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Balance of Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Share of
Potential
Potential
130,795
750
31.3%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
8,300
4,575
5,210
18,085
60
40
130
230
2.5%
1.7%
5.4%
9.6%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
3,540
2,410
5,950
30
30
60
1.3%
1.3%
2.5%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
36,350
19,845
16,040
16,655
295
89,185
0
160
130
170
0
460
0.0%
6.7%
5.4%
7.1%
0.0%
19.2%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
8,900
4,190
4,485
17,575
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 5
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Balance of Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Share of
Potential
Potential
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
164,225
690
28.8%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
14,080
4,760
18,840
160
70
230
6.7%
2.9%
9.6%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
5,270
1,150
6,420
60
20
80
2.5%
0.8%
3.3%
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
18,730
32,405
19,905
10,885
14,675
8,100
104,700
0
380
0
0
0
0
380
0.0%
15.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.8%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
18,565
4,540
5,655
900
4,605
34,265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 5
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Balance of Oakland County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Younger
Singles & Couples
Share of
Potential
Potential
117,795
960
40.0%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
5,795
2,345
2,415
10,555
90
40
50
180
3.8%
1.7%
2.1%
7.5%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
5,490
2,190
1,110
8,790
80
40
20
140
3.3%
1.7%
0.8%
5.8%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
15,550
25,875
21,295
12,820
75,540
280
360
0
0
640
11.7%
15.0%
0.0%
0.0%
26.7%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
13,070
7,390
2,450
22,910
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 6
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix Two, Tables 1 And 2
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Wayne
County
Macomb
County
Total
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
260
110
370
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
170
50
40
0
30
0
80
0
200
50
120
0
300
150
450
190
40
70
0
50
10
90
0
240
50
160
0
190
140
330
60
60
70
0
0
0
140
0
60
60
210
0
750
65.2%
400
34.8%
1,150
100.0%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Younger
Singles & Couples
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Total:
Percent:
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 6
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix Two, Tables 1 And 2
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan
Wayne
County
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Macomb
County
Total
260
110
370
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
30
30
110
170
0
10
20
30
30
40
130
200
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
20
30
50
0
0
0
20
30
50
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
0
10
10
10
10
40
0
20
20
10
30
80
0
30
30
20
40
120
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 6
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix Two, Tables 1 And 2
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan
Wayne
County
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Macomb
County
Total
300
150
450
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
70
120
190
30
20
50
100
140
240
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
30
10
40
10
0
10
40
10
50
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
0
20
10
10
20
10
70
0
20
0
0
50
20
90
0
40
10
10
70
30
160
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 6
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix Two, Tables 1 And 2
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan
Wayne
County
Younger
Singles & Couples
Macomb
County
Total
190
140
330
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
20
20
20
60
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
60
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
30
20
10
60
0
0
0
0
30
20
10
60
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
10
30
20
10
70
10
50
50
30
140
20
80
70
40
210
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 7
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
All Other U.S. Counties
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Younger
Singles & Couples
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Total:
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Potential
Share of
Potential
230
23.0%
110
60
60
0
11.0%
6.0%
6.0%
0.0%
260
26.0%
100
80
80
0
10.0%
8.0%
8.0%
0.0%
510
51.0%
170
140
200
0
17.0%
14.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1,000
100.0%
Appendix One, Table 7
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
All Other U.S. Counties
Share of
Potential
Potential
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
230
23.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
30
20
60
110
3.0%
2.0%
6.0%
11.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
20
40
60
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
20
20
20
60
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
6.0%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 7
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
All Other U.S. Counties
Share of
Potential
Potential
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
260
26.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
50
50
100
5.0%
5.0%
10.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
40
40
80
4.0%
4.0%
8.0%
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
0
40
0
0
0
40
80
0.0%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
8.0%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 7
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
All Other U.S. Counties
Share of
Potential
Potential
Younger
Singles & Couples
510
51.0%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
40
60
70
170
4.0%
6.0%
7.0%
17.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
40
50
50
140
4.0%
5.0%
5.0%
14.0%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
40
50
70
40
200
4.0%
5.0%
7.0%
4.0%
20.0%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 8
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within/To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix One, Tables 4 Through 7
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Younger
Singles & Couples
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Total:
Percent:
City of
Pontiac
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
150
750
370
230
1,500
0
120
30
0
230
60
460
0
200
50
120
0
110
60
60
0
540
290
670
0
440
690
450
260
1,840
0
260
180
0
230
80
380
0
240
50
160
0
100
80
80
0
570
470
800
0
560
960
330
510
2,360
0
420
140
0
180
140
640
0
60
60
210
0
170
140
200
0
410
760
1,190
0
1,150
20.2%
2,400
42.1%
1,150
20.2%
1,000
17.5%
5,700
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 8
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within/To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix One, Tables 4 Through 7
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
City of
Pontiac
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
150
750
370
230
1,500
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
60
40
130
230
30
40
130
200
30
20
60
110
120
100
320
540
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
30
90
120
30
30
60
20
30
50
20
40
60
100
190
290
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
0
10
0
0
20
30
0
160
130
170
0
460
0
30
30
20
40
120
0
0
20
20
20
60
0
200
180
210
80
670
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 8
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within/To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix One, Tables 4 Through 7
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
City of
Pontiac
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
440
690
450
260
1,840
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
160
70
230
100
140
240
50
50
100
310
260
570
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
110
150
260
60
20
80
40
10
50
40
40
80
250
220
470
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
0
20
20
10
70
60
180
0
380
0
0
0
0
380
0
40
10
10
70
30
160
0
40
0
0
0
40
80
0
480
30
20
140
130
800
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 8
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move Within/To The City of Pontiac In 2006
Summary: Appendix One, Tables 4 Through 7
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
City of
Pontiac
Younger
Singles & Couples
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
560
960
330
510
2,360
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
90
40
50
180
20
20
20
60
40
60
70
170
150
120
140
410
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
110
130
180
420
80
40
20
140
30
20
10
60
40
50
50
140
260
240
260
760
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
60
50
30
140
280
360
0
0
640
20
80
70
40
210
40
50
70
40
200
340
550
190
110
1,190
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 9
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
City of
Pontiac
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
60
240
140
100
540
0
50
10
0
80
20
140
0
80
20
40
0
40
30
30
0
200
120
220
0
40
100
60
50
250
0
40
0
0
30
10
60
0
40
10
10
0
20
20
10
0
90
80
80
0
Younger
Singles & Couples
170
340
90
130
730
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
0
150
20
0
60
50
230
0
30
20
40
0
50
50
30
0
140
270
320
0
270
17.8%
680
44.7%
290
19.1%
280
18.4%
1,520
100.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Total:
Percent:
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 9
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
City of
Pontiac
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
60
240
140
100
540
Metropolitan Cities
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
0
0
0
20
60
80
20
60
80
10
30
40
50
150
200
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
10
40
50
10
10
20
10
10
20
10
20
30
40
80
120
Metropolitan Suburbs
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
0
0
10
10
60
80
0
140
10
10
20
40
10
10
10
30
80
100
40
220
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 9
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
City of
Pontiac
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
40
100
60
50
250
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
20
10
30
20
20
40
10
10
20
50
40
90
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
20
20
40
10
0
10
10
0
10
10
10
20
50
30
80
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Entrepreneurs
Subtotal:
0
0
60
60
10
10
10
10
80
80
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 9
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb, Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
City of
Pontiac
Younger
Singles & Couples
Balance of
Oakland
Wayne &
Macomb
All Other
US Counties
Total
170
340
90
130
730
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
0
0
0
0
30
10
20
60
10
10
10
30
10
20
20
50
50
40
50
140
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
40
50
60
150
30
10
10
50
10
10
0
20
10
20
20
50
90
90
90
270
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Subtotal:
0
20
20
100
130
230
10
30
40
10
20
30
120
200
320
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 10
Page 1 of 4
Tenure (Renter/Buyer) Profile
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
. . Rental . .
Above
Median
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EntryFirst-Time Move-Up/
MoveLevel
Move-Up
Lateral
Down
Total
110
0
10
220
200
540
50
20
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
90
40
90
0
60
50
90
0
200
120
220
0
50
30
50
80
40
250
30
10
10
0
10
10
10
0
20
10
20
0
20
40
20
0
10
10
20
0
90
80
80
0
Younger
Singles & Couples
300
110
160
130
30
730
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
90
120
90
0
10
40
60
0
10
60
90
0
30
40
60
0
0
10
20
0
140
270
320
0
460
30.3%
140
9.2%
220
14.5%
430
28.3%
270
17.8%
1,520
100.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
Total:
Percent:
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 10
Page 2 of 4
Tenure (Renter/Buyer) Profile
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Above
Median
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EntryFirst-Time Move-Up/
MoveLevel
Move-Up
Lateral
Down
Total
Metropolitan Cities
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
10
40
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
70
90
20
40
60
50
150
200
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
0
20
20
0
0
0
0
10
10
20
20
40
20
30
50
40
80
120
Metropolitan Suburbs
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
0
30
10
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
30
20
90
40
40
10
90
80
100
40
220
Total:
Percent:
110
20.4%
0
0.0%
10
1.9%
220
40.7%
200
37.0%
540
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 10
Page 3 of 4
Tenure (Renter/Buyer) Profile
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Above
Median
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EntryFirst-Time Move-Up/
MoveLevel
Move-Up
Lateral
Down
Total
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
10
20
30
10
0
10
10
10
20
10
10
20
10
0
10
50
40
90
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
0
10
10
10
0
10
10
0
10
20
20
40
10
0
10
50
30
80
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Entrepreneurs
Subtotal:
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
80
80
Total:
Percent:
50
20.0%
30
12.0%
50
20.0%
80
32.0%
40
16.0%
250
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 10
Page 4 of 4
Tenure (Renter/Buyer) Profile
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Younger
Singles & Couples
Above
Median
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EntryFirst-Time Move-Up/
MoveLevel
Move-Up
Lateral
Down
Total
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
20
30
40
90
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
10
10
10
10
30
0
0
0
0
50
40
50
140
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
20
50
50
120
20
10
10
40
30
20
10
60
10
10
20
40
10
0
0
10
90
90
90
270
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Subtotal:
30
60
90
30
30
60
40
50
90
10
50
60
10
10
20
120
200
320
Total:
Percent:
300
41.1%
110
15.1%
160
21.9%
130
17.8%
30
4.1%
730
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 11
Page 1 of 4
New Unit Purchase Propensity By Housing Type
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Multi. . Family . .
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Single. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Attached . .
All Ranges
All Ranges
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
Total
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
110
80
80
100
60
430
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
50
10
50
0
40
20
20
0
20
30
30
0
20
30
50
0
20
10
30
0
150
100
180
0
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
20
40
40
50
50
200
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
10
0
10
0
20
10
10
0
20
10
10
0
10
30
10
0
0
20
30
0
60
70
70
0
Younger
Singles & Couples
110
80
30
130
80
430
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
30
30
50
0
20
30
30
0
0
20
10
0
0
50
80
0
0
20
60
0
50
150
230
0
240
22.6%
200
18.9%
150
14.2%
280
26.4%
190
17.9%
1,060
100.0%
Total:
Percent:
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 11
Page 2 of 4
New Unit Purchase Propensity By Housing Type
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Multi. . Family . .
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Single. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Attached . .
All Ranges
All Ranges
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
Total
Metropolitan Cities
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
10
40
50
10
30
40
0
20
20
10
10
20
10
10
20
40
110
150
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
0
10
10
10
10
20
10
20
30
10
20
30
10
0
10
40
60
100
Metropolitan Suburbs
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
20
20
10
50
10
10
0
20
10
10
10
30
20
20
10
50
20
10
0
30
80
70
30
180
Total:
Percent:
110
25.6%
80
18.6%
80
18.6%
100
23.3%
60
14.0%
430
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 11
Page 3 of 4
New Unit Purchase Propensity By Housing Type
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Multi. . Family . .
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
Single. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Attached . .
All Ranges
All Ranges
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
Total
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
10
0
10
10
10
20
10
10
20
10
0
10
0
0
0
40
20
60
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
0
0
0
10
0
10
0
10
10
20
10
30
20
0
20
50
20
70
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Entrepreneurs
Subtotal:
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
30
30
70
70
Total:
Percent:
20
10.0%
40
20.0%
40
20.0%
50
25.0%
50
25.0%
200
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix One, Table 11
Page 4 of 4
New Unit Purchase Propensity By Housing Type
Households With The Potential
To Move To Downtown Pontiac In 2006
City of Pontiac; Balance of Oakland County;
Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; All Other U.S. Counties
Multi. . Family . .
Younger
Singles & Couples
Single. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . Attached . .
All Ranges
All Ranges
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Low-Range
Mid-Range
High-Range
Total
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
10
10
10
30
20
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
10
10
50
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
10
10
10
30
10
10
10
30
0
10
10
20
30
10
10
50
20
0
0
20
70
40
40
150
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Subtotal:
30
20
50
10
20
30
0
10
10
20
60
80
30
30
60
90
140
230
Total:
Percent:
110
25.6%
80
18.6%
30
7.0%
130
30.2%
80
18.6%
430
100.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
MARKET POSITION ANALYSIS
Downtown Pontiac
City of Pontiac, Oakland County, Michigan
November, 2006
Appendix Two Tables
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
Appendix Two, Table 1
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Wayne County, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Estimated
Number
Potential
Share of
Potential
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
227,010
260
34.7%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
121,085
46,145
49,515
10,265
170
50
40
0
22.7%
6.7%
5.3%
0.0%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
237,885
300
40.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
141,550
27,955
51,395
16,985
190
40
70
0
25.3%
5.3%
9.3%
0.0%
Younger
Singles & Couples
109,075
190
25.3%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
30,790
33,580
40,440
4,265
60
60
70
0
8.0%
8.0%
9.3%
0.0%
Total:
573,970
750
100.0%
Total County Households:
748,950
Classified Households As A Share
Of Total County Households:
76.6%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 1
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Wayne County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Share of
Potential
Potential
227,010
260
34.7%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
41,055
36,695
43,335
121,085
30
30
110
170
4.0%
4.0%
14.7%
22.7%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
23,580
22,565
46,145
20
30
50
2.7%
4.0%
6.7%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
12,065
13,045
10,020
4,695
9,690
49,515
0
10
10
10
10
40
0.0%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.3%
5.3%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
3,155
4,410
2,700
10,265
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 1
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Wayne County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Share of
Potential
Potential
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
237,885
300
40.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
59,760
81,790
141,550
70
120
190
9.3%
16.0%
25.3%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
19,740
8,215
27,955
30
10
40
4.0%
1.3%
5.3%
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
5,925
12,225
7,635
8,845
9,740
7,025
51,395
0
20
10
10
20
10
70
0.0%
2.7%
1.3%
1.3%
2.7%
1.3%
9.3%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
1,095
3,640
4,980
95
7,175
16,985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 1
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Wayne County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Younger
Singles & Couples
Share of
Potential
Potential
109,075
190
25.3%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
11,710
10,075
9,005
30,790
20
20
20
60
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
8.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
21,835
8,120
3,625
33,580
30
20
10
60
4.0%
2.7%
1.3%
8.0%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
3,110
17,480
9,925
9,925
40,440
10
30
20
10
70
1.3%
4.0%
2.7%
1.3%
9.3%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
1,190
965
2,110
4,265
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 2
Page 1 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Macomb County, Michigan
Household Type/
Geographic Designation
Estimated
Number
Potential
Share of
Potential
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
106,970
110
27.5%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
21,200
4,465
73,395
7,910
30
0
80
0
7.5%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
108,185
150
37.5%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
23,160
4,075
66,800
14,150
50
10
90
0
12.5%
2.5%
22.5%
0.0%
Younger
Singles & Couples
71,280
140
35.0%
Metropolitan Cities
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Metropolitan Suburbs
Town & Country/Exurbs
2,650
4,150
57,970
6,510
0
0
140
0
0.0%
0.0%
35.0%
0.0%
Total:
286,435
400
100.0%
Total County Households:
335,930
Classified Households As A Share
Of Total County Households:
85.3%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 2
Page 2 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Macomb County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Empty Nesters
& Retirees
Share of
Potential
Potential
106,970
110
27.5%
Metropolitan Cities
Urban Establishment
Cosmopolitan Couples
Multi-Ethnic Empty Nesters
Subtotal:
3,825
11,005
6,370
21,200
0
10
20
30
0.0%
2.5%
5.0%
7.5%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Cosmopolitan Elite
Middle-Class Move-Downs
Subtotal:
2,145
2,320
4,465
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Old Money
Suburban Establishment
Affluent Empty Nesters
Mainstream Retirees
Middle-American Retirees
Subtotal:
8,870
17,760
16,180
8,880
21,705
73,395
0
20
20
10
30
80
0.0%
5.0%
5.0%
2.5%
7.5%
20.0%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Small-Town Establishment
New Empty Nesters
RV Retirees
Subtotal:
2,950
2,590
2,370
7,910
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 2
Page 3 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Macomb County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Share of
Potential
Potential
Traditional &
Non-Traditional Families
108,185
150
37.5%
Metropolitan Cities
Full-Nest Urbanites
Multi-Cultural Families
Subtotal:
15,450
7,710
23,160
30
20
50
7.5%
5.0%
12.5%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
Unibox Transferees
Multi-Ethnic Families
Subtotal:
2,995
1,080
4,075
10
0
10
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
Metropolitan Suburbs
The Social Register
The Entrepreneurs
Nouveau Money
Late-Nest Suburbanites
Full-Nest Suburbanites
Blue-Collar Button-Downs
Subtotal:
5,515
12,450
11,550
11,565
17,215
8,505
66,800
0
20
0
0
50
20
90
0.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
12.5%
5.0%
22.5%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Elite
Full-Nest Exurbanites
New-Town Families
Small-Town Families
Blue-Collar Families
Subtotal:
4,705
3,200
2,655
570
3,020
14,150
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
Appendix Two, Table 2
Page 4 of 4
Households With The Potential
To Move To The City Of Pontiac In 2006
Household Classification By Market Groups
Macomb County, Michigan
Estimated
Number
Younger
Singles & Couples
Share of
Potential
Potential
71,280
140
35.0%
Metropolitan Cities
e-Types
New Bohemians
Urban Achievers
Subtotal:
1,300
845
505
2,650
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Small Cities/Satellite Cities
The VIPs
Twentysomethings
Small-City Singles
Subtotal:
2,320
1,455
375
4,150
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Metropolitan Suburbs
Fast-Track Professionals
Upscale Suburban Couples
Suburban Achievers
No-Nest Suburbanites
Subtotal:
2,835
24,240
15,455
15,440
57,970
10
50
50
30
140
2.5%
12.5%
12.5%
7.5%
35.0%
Town & Country/Exurbs
Ex-Urban Power Couples
Cross-Training Couples
Exurban Suburbanites
Subtotal:
3,645
1,610
1,255
6,510
0
0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908-735-6336 • 908-735-4751 facsimile
info@ZVA.cc • www.ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
A SSUMPTIONS AND L IMITATIONS —
Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the data contained within this analysis.
Demographic and economic estimates and projections have been obtained from government
agencies at the national, state, and county levels. Market information has been obtained from
sources presumed to be reliable, including developers, owners, and/or sales agents. However,
this information cannot be warranted by Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.
While the
methodology employed in this analysis allows for a margin of error in base data, it is
assumed that the market data and government estimates and projections are substantially
accurate.
Absorption scenarios are based upon the assumption that a normal economic environment will
prevail in a relatively steady state during development of the subject property. Absorption
paces are likely to be slower during recessionary periods and faster during periods of recovery
and high growth. Absorption scenarios are also predicated on the assumption that the product
recommendations will be implemented generally as outlined in this report and that the
developer will apply high-caliber design, construction, marketing, and management techniques
to the development of the property.
Recommendations are subject to compliance with all applicable regulations.
accounting, tax, and legal matters should be substantiated by appropriate counsel.
o
Relevant
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.
6 East Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908 735-6336 • 908 735-4751 facsimile
www.ZVA.cc • info@ZVA.cc
Research & Strategic Analysis
R IGHTS AND STUDY O WNERSHIP —
Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. retains all rights, title and interest in the methodology and
target market descriptions contained within this study. The specific findings of the analysis are
the property of the client and can be distributed at the client’s discretion.
o
ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC., 2006