URBAN POLICIES AND HOME AFFORDABILITY

Demographia International released their annual report on the affordability of homes due to the policies of urbanization.  The particular slant of the organization is that they would prefer cities consist primarily of single-family residential properties, and they are so blinded by this goal, that to them the facts really do not matter.  So, don’t take what they write too seriously.  To them, another condominium development is another enemy being created.  This bias has them attempting to blame all the ills of society on high-density residential living.

They are oblivious to the facts that condos are necessary in a modern society, and their importance will only grow.  Here is my list of reasons why Demographia is wrong:
1. Young people use their home to eat and sleep, and that is it.  They do not want their activities limited by their home, in fact, their lifestyle demands that if they had a house, the general maintenance required would be neglected pretty much immediately.
2. Old people do not have the physical strength / financial resources / or patience required to maintain a house. That’s why they move to condos that require less maintenance.
3. Multi-family residential properties make efficient use of land

Demographia lives in the 1950′s, I never considered there would be an organization whose mandate is to demand that we all live in houses with white picket fences.  Hey!  Demographia International!  Here is some news for you: People live in condos, because they want to!  They offer their owners the lifestyle they enjoy.  Everyone has their own tastes.  Some people like to cut their lawn and do gardening,  and other people like to lock their doors on the drop of a hat and get out of town.  Not everyone is the same; personalities are as varied as home styles.

So lets laugh a little and read their report.

First on their list of threats to society that multi-family residential properties pose is environmental.  They say that occupants of multi-family residential properties create more greenhouse gases per person than those of single-family residential properties.  This is because lights are required to be on 24 hours a day in hallways and parking garages to satisfy fire regulations.  The buildings seem to use more heating oil, and electricity than single-family buildings.  This is due to the use of elevators that consume a lot of energy and the requirement to power common elements like a gymnasium or sauna, etc.  They also say that more energy is used in the construction of multi-family residences than would be used in the creation of the equivalent amount of single-family homes.

This all sounds like it could be true.  They don’t go into great detail on how they obtained their results, but lets assume for sake of argument that it is true.  We should all be conscious of our environmental impact and try to minimize it whenever possible.  Unfortunately, the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions do not come from family residences of any kind, they come from industry.  In their report, the authors say that emissions from multi-residential properties could be as high as twice those from their single-family counterpart.  Even if their argument is true, the amounts are dwarfed by those put out by industry.

Second, they claim the population density that is created by multi-family residential buildings creates gridlock. In this case, they are just trying to pin the blame where it does not belong. It is not the buildings that create the gridlock; it is the streets are too small to handle the capacity.  Urban planners should take into consideration the fact that even though a person lives on the subway line, they still need and will use a motor vehicle.  If the authors have ever gone to Mexico City, they will notice that most of the residences are single-family buildings, and they have terrible gridlock there too.  The cause: the streets are too small to handle the capacity.  Just like the areas where there are multi-family residential buildings.

Then they talk about high-density areas affecting your physical and mental health.  The inability to run in open spaces will impair a child’s development.  These things could be true as well, but they can be corrected with a weekend outing to a farm, or some other locale.  It may be something to keep in mind, but I don’t see any major problem here.  A change of scenery is good for the physical and mental development of all people regardless of age.  The lifestyle provided by a multi-residential building would allow the resident the freedom to leave their home more readily than a single-family residential property.  Also, a person could hibernate indoors just as easily if they lived in a single-family house.

The development of infrastructure is apparently another evil created by multi-family residential properties. The quality of utilities and public transportation supposedly drops when supplied to a high-density area.  Here, I think they mean to say that the service is different.  Like the service differs between commercial and residential properties, it also differs between low and high-density populations.  That’s just how it is.  A 10 watt battery will not power a 20 watt radio, if you try, it won’t work.  You need a different battery, a 20 watt battery!  Keeping the 10 watt battery isn’t making the world a better place, or a more efficient one, it is just hampering progress.

The report tries to force a link between property prices and development of multi-family residences, when in reality no link exists.  The calculations they come up with are even less meaningful than those of the average sale price of a house in Toronto.  They actually expand on that meaningless information, its ridiculous.

A property is valuable because of the land it sits on.  The better the location: the higher the price.  As your parents told you, with real estate there is are only three things you must remember, Location, Location and Location.

This is the Report in Full: – Demographia International Report