Narberth Housing Affordability Survey — Quantitative Summary

Overview

The Narberth Borough housing affordability survey was conducted in March 2026 as part of the Planning Commission’s review of proposed zoning changes. A total of 443 responses were received, of which 303 completed all sections.

You can find a list of explained terms and concepts here

Q2 — Housing affordability views

This was an open-ended question. Responses were thematically coded into three dominant sentiment categories.

Recurring themes across responses:

• Housing prices reflect desirable location and market demand
• Homeowners value and rely on rising property values
• The next generation and young families are being priced out
• Seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford to remain in the borough
• Renters face disproportionate cost pressure
• Narberth is more affordable than comparable Main Line towns

“It has become unaffordable for so many to move to Narberth and this is a problem.”

“The prices reflect how desirable it is to live here. The market determines prices. Basic economics.”

The distribution of views was roughly even three ways, with no dominant consensus on whether affordability is a problem requiring intervention.

Q3 — Housing typologies respondents have lived in

Multi-select. Respondents could select all types reflecting their full housing history. n=303.

The respondent pool is heavily weighted toward single-family and twin-house owners, which is consistent with Narberth’s existing housing stock and likely shapes responses throughout the survey.

Q4 — Housing types desired in Narberth

Multi-select. Respondents selected types they would like to see more of. n=303.

Key observations:

• Apartment buildings received the lowest level of support of any housing type (18.5%)
• Nearly three in ten respondents selected “none” — indicating opposition to any new housing
• The top three desired types (single-family, twin, cottage) are all low-density, ownership-oriented forms
• Mixed use and multifamily received roughly equal support at just over 21%

Q5 — Zoning districts that should encourage growth

Multi-select. Respondents selected districts where they consider growth acceptable. n=303.

Key observations:

• The commercial corridors (5a and 5b) are the only areas with meaningful majority support for growth
• Support drops sharply below 17% for all residential and transitional zones
• 37.3% of respondents reject growth in any district — the third-most-common single answer
• Only 15.8% of respondents indicated the 4a district should encourage growth
• Only 16.5% indicated the 4b district should encourage growth

Q6 — Proposed 5b (Montgomery Avenue) zoning changes

Open-ended. Respondents were asked for their views on the Planning Commission’s proposed changes to the 5b zoning district, which include: increased building height to 55 feet (with density bonus), reduced base parking to 0.7 spaces per residential unit, parking exemptions for affordable units, and SEPTA pass incentives. n=303.

Specific issues raised:

Recurring objections:

• Reducing parking does not reduce car ownership — it displaces cars onto residential streets
• SEPTA service is unreliable and cannot be used as a planning baseline
• Five-story buildings are incompatible with Narberth’s character and scale
• The affordable unit threshold (10% of units at 80% AMI) is too low to meaningfully address affordability
• Existing apartments on and near Montgomery Avenue already have high vacancy

Recurring points of support:

• Montgomery Avenue is the most appropriate location for any density increase
• Mixed-use development with commercial ground floors would support the downtown
• Increased foot traffic could help struggling local businesses
• Transit-oriented development makes conceptual sense near train and bus access

Q7 — Proposed 4a (General Urban Limited) zoning changes

Open-ended. Respondents were asked for their views on the proposed 4a changes, which include: allowing apartments, cottages, and row houses by right; a 4th-storey density bonus to 45 feet; reducing parking to 0.7 spaces/unit; removing the visitor parking requirement; and allowing parking to be met on lots within 900 feet. n=303.

Specific issues raised:

More nuanced positions within the 68% opposition:

• ADUs (accessory dwelling units) were more broadly accepted, even by respondents opposing other elements
• Cottages and row houses were considered more compatible than apartment blocks
• Several respondents opposed taller buildings but accepted allowing two-unit dwellings
• The 900-foot off-site parking provision was widely seen as unworkable

Concerns specific to 4a (beyond those shared with 5b):

• The district borders established residential streets with no driveways — parking overflow would fall entirely on those streets
• 45-foot buildings adjacent to 2-storey homes would block sunlight along narrow streets
• Schools and local infrastructure already described as at or near capacity
• Downtown storefronts remain largely vacant; new residents should follow commercial revitalisation, not precede it

Cross-cutting findings

These patterns appear consistently across multiple questions and response categories.

Parking reduction — the clearest area of community consensus

The proposal to reduce the base parking requirement to 0.7 spaces per residential unit is the single most-opposed specific policy in the survey. Approximately 70–75% of open-ended responses that address it are negative. This opposition cuts across respondents who are otherwise supportive of some growth — even conditional supporters typically carve out an exception on parking. No other single element of either zoning proposal generated comparable uniformity of objection.

Downtown revitalisation — surprising cross-aisle agreement

Both opponents of density and supporters of the zoning changes consistently cited the prolonged vacancy of downtown storefronts — particularly along Haverford Avenue — as a higher priority than new residential development. This issue was raised across the full spectrum of opinion and represents the most plausible basis for coalition-building on the Council.

The preferred growth model

Where residents express any willingness to accept change, the revealed preference is:

• Commercial corridors only (5a/5b) for any meaningful density increase
• Low-density, ownership-oriented housing types (single-family, twin, cottage, row house)
• No reduction in parking requirements
• ADUs as an acceptable lower-impact tool for gentle densification

Summary of headline figures

Methodology note

Open-ended sentiment percentages are approximations based on thematic coding of 303 responses. Respondents submitting near-identical text were counted once per unique household. Multi-select questions allow aggregate percentages to exceed 100%. The survey was distributed digitally by Narberth Borough and the Montgomery County Planning Commission in late February 2026; response bias toward homeowners and long-term residents should be considered when interpreting results.