Subscribe
Feargus O'Sullivan is back with another Bloomberg CityLab article about "the iconic home designs that define our global cities." In this recent article he focuses on the Barnrikehus of Stockholm (and also talks about Sweden's housing market in general). Originally built in the 1930s, the slab-like midrise buildings were largely intended to address two pressing problems: 1) the need for affordable housing and 2) Sweden's incredibly low birthrate (supposedly the lowest in Europe at the time).
The Barnrikehus template was deployed on the edges of Stockholm and other Swedish cities. The designs were/are fairly simple. Very little ornament (this is Scandinavia). Four or five storeys usually. And no more than about 12 meters deep. This allowed for better natural ventilation, which was important for stymying the spread of tuberculosis. The rents were also heavily subsidized and declined even further with every child in the family. In other words: the more kids you had, the less rent you had to pay.
The suites were fairly compact, with many around the 430 square foot mark. This kind of space might have housed a family of six according to O'Sullivan. But compared to the other available housing options at the time, this was a significant improvement. Perhaps not surprisingly, these "child-rich houses" (which is how the name translates) developed the same kind of social housing stigma that was prevalent in many other countries and cities around the world.
But that perception changed over time and, today, these rent-controlled apartments are apparently highly sought after. (Here's a listing to give you a taste of what they're like.) Originally on the fringe of cities like Stockholm, they are now very well located and offer a high standard of living. (You also can't go wrong with white walls and pale woods.) To learn more about the evolution of Stockholm's depression-era housing, click here.
Photo by Jon Flobrant on Unsplash
At the beginning of this year, Singapore expanded its preschool subsidies and improved its support for assisted reproduction and fertility treatments. The goal: more Singaporean children. According to the World Bank (via the Wall Street Journal), Singapore has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at about 1.14 children per woman as of 2018. This is down from about 3 in 1970, when the government was actually worried about the opposite problem -- too many children.
Of course, this trend is not unique to Singapore. This is generally the way the winds are blowing in the developed world. Young people are spending more time on education, career, and travel. And they're delaying marriage (or not getting married). On top of this, family-sized housing has become fairly expensive in most big cities. The fastest solution is to ramp up immigration, but many countries, including Singapore, have concerns about what this does to the "national identity."
One of the things that Joe Berridge reminded me of in his talk yesterday, is that the story of Toronto is really the story of immigration.
In his words, Toronto has become the success story that it is precisely because we are good at taking in lots of immigrants and making them economically productive.
Sure, there are many things that we could be doing better, but you don’t get to be the most multicultural city on the planet without doing a lot of things right. More than half of this city is now foreign born. The term “visible minority” is quickly expiring.
Feargus O'Sullivan is back with another Bloomberg CityLab article about "the iconic home designs that define our global cities." In this recent article he focuses on the Barnrikehus of Stockholm (and also talks about Sweden's housing market in general). Originally built in the 1930s, the slab-like midrise buildings were largely intended to address two pressing problems: 1) the need for affordable housing and 2) Sweden's incredibly low birthrate (supposedly the lowest in Europe at the time).
The Barnrikehus template was deployed on the edges of Stockholm and other Swedish cities. The designs were/are fairly simple. Very little ornament (this is Scandinavia). Four or five storeys usually. And no more than about 12 meters deep. This allowed for better natural ventilation, which was important for stymying the spread of tuberculosis. The rents were also heavily subsidized and declined even further with every child in the family. In other words: the more kids you had, the less rent you had to pay.
The suites were fairly compact, with many around the 430 square foot mark. This kind of space might have housed a family of six according to O'Sullivan. But compared to the other available housing options at the time, this was a significant improvement. Perhaps not surprisingly, these "child-rich houses" (which is how the name translates) developed the same kind of social housing stigma that was prevalent in many other countries and cities around the world.
But that perception changed over time and, today, these rent-controlled apartments are apparently highly sought after. (Here's a listing to give you a taste of what they're like.) Originally on the fringe of cities like Stockholm, they are now very well located and offer a high standard of living. (You also can't go wrong with white walls and pale woods.) To learn more about the evolution of Stockholm's depression-era housing, click here.
Photo by Jon Flobrant on Unsplash
At the beginning of this year, Singapore expanded its preschool subsidies and improved its support for assisted reproduction and fertility treatments. The goal: more Singaporean children. According to the World Bank (via the Wall Street Journal), Singapore has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at about 1.14 children per woman as of 2018. This is down from about 3 in 1970, when the government was actually worried about the opposite problem -- too many children.
Of course, this trend is not unique to Singapore. This is generally the way the winds are blowing in the developed world. Young people are spending more time on education, career, and travel. And they're delaying marriage (or not getting married). On top of this, family-sized housing has become fairly expensive in most big cities. The fastest solution is to ramp up immigration, but many countries, including Singapore, have concerns about what this does to the "national identity."
One of the things that Joe Berridge reminded me of in his talk yesterday, is that the story of Toronto is really the story of immigration.
In his words, Toronto has become the success story that it is precisely because we are good at taking in lots of immigrants and making them economically productive.
Sure, there are many things that we could be doing better, but you don’t get to be the most multicultural city on the planet without doing a lot of things right. More than half of this city is now foreign born. The term “visible minority” is quickly expiring.
So there seems to be a preference for throwing money at the problem and promotional material with slogans like this one: "Have three, or more if you can afford it."
Chart: WSJ
And more than anything else, this accomplishment is arguably what has allowed us to become the global city that we are. Click here for a fascinating chart from the Toronto Star that allows you to see the number and source of immigrants that have come to this city over the last half century.
But of course, Toronto is not alone in this accomplishment.
Urban economist Edward Glaeser wrote a great essay back in 2005 called Urban Colossus: Why is New York America’s Largest City? It’s an incredibly interesting read for those of you interested in cities and so I definitely recommend it.
But the crux of his argument is that New York is the largest and most dominant city in America because of geography – specifically its deep harbor – and because of its success in manufacturing.
What this meant is that New York became the center of shipping in the country and the point of entry for the majority of immigrants coming into the United States. But since transportation costs were still relatively high at the time, most immigrants arrived in New York and stayed in New York.
Luckily, New York had a robust manufacturing economy – notably because of sugar refining, publishing and printing, and the garment industry. This allowed the waves of immigrants flooding into New York to become economically productive.
From 1850 to 1920, the population of the New York grew about 800% from roughly 700,000 people to over 5.6 million people.
So the moral of the story is simply that immigration has and will continue to play a pivotal role in the shaping of our cities. Canada has a sub-replacement fertility rate somewhere around 1.61 births per woman (2012). This is lower than that of United States, which is around 1.88 births per woman.
That means that without immigration, we do not grow. We shrink. And that’s usually not a great thing for economies.
So there seems to be a preference for throwing money at the problem and promotional material with slogans like this one: "Have three, or more if you can afford it."
Chart: WSJ
And more than anything else, this accomplishment is arguably what has allowed us to become the global city that we are. Click here for a fascinating chart from the Toronto Star that allows you to see the number and source of immigrants that have come to this city over the last half century.
But of course, Toronto is not alone in this accomplishment.
Urban economist Edward Glaeser wrote a great essay back in 2005 called Urban Colossus: Why is New York America’s Largest City? It’s an incredibly interesting read for those of you interested in cities and so I definitely recommend it.
But the crux of his argument is that New York is the largest and most dominant city in America because of geography – specifically its deep harbor – and because of its success in manufacturing.
What this meant is that New York became the center of shipping in the country and the point of entry for the majority of immigrants coming into the United States. But since transportation costs were still relatively high at the time, most immigrants arrived in New York and stayed in New York.
Luckily, New York had a robust manufacturing economy – notably because of sugar refining, publishing and printing, and the garment industry. This allowed the waves of immigrants flooding into New York to become economically productive.
From 1850 to 1920, the population of the New York grew about 800% from roughly 700,000 people to over 5.6 million people.
So the moral of the story is simply that immigration has and will continue to play a pivotal role in the shaping of our cities. Canada has a sub-replacement fertility rate somewhere around 1.61 births per woman (2012). This is lower than that of United States, which is around 1.88 births per woman.
That means that without immigration, we do not grow. We shrink. And that’s usually not a great thing for economies.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog