Subscribe
Benjamin Couillard is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto whose research looks at things like residential choice and housing supply. And in this recently published paper, he studies the causal effects of rising housing costs on fertility. Here's what he found when examining US Census Bureau data:
...rising [housing] costs since 1990 are responsible for 11% fewer children, 51% of the total fertility rate decline between the 2000s and 2010s, and 7 percentage points fewer young families in the 2010s. Policy counterfactuals indicate that a supply shift for large units generates 2.3 times more births than an equal-cost shift for small units. This analysis concludes that the supply of housing suitable for families can meaningfully contribute to demographic sustainability.
Intuitively, it makes sense that rational adults might consider where they would put a child if they had one, or had one more, and consider the cost of this incremental space. Housing is expensive in major urban centers. Perhaps it's no surprise that Canada, which is known for its broadly unaffordable housing, has fallen into the "ultra-low fertility" category.
But I think this fertility-housing relationship is an important one to call out when considering appropriate public policies. Housing is often viewed through the lens of what bad things will happen if we build it. That's why we do shadow studies, force stepbacks, charge development charges (impact fees), and the list goes on.
What is harder to grasp is what happens when we don't build new housing. Most — or at least many — seem to agree that not building enough housing hurts overall affordability. But what this study also demonstrates is that not building enough family-sized housing is bad for making babies!
This has all sorts of socio-economic repercussions, one of which is that a country now has to rely more heavily on immigration in order to offset a shrinking population base. It becomes a larger economic problem. When framed this way, it makes me wonder: why do we tax new family-sized homes the way we do?
An alternative approach to encourage more infill family housing might be to eliminate development charges, building permit fees, parkland fees, and as many other government fees as possible on all three-bedroom or larger homes. And the reason you would do this is because the economic and demographic cost of not building is even greater.
Based on the work of Couillard, we know at least one of the outcomes: more babies.
Cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
The National Center of Health Statistics just released this update on births and birth rates for the United States in 2017. The provisional number of births last year was 3,853,472, which represents a 2% reduction from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years. The general fertility rate was 60.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44, which represents a 3% reduction from 2016. Also a record low.
Here is a chart from the report showing birth rates for selected age ranges from 1990 to 2016 (the 2017 numbers are provisional):
I’ve written quite a few posts about family formation and, more specifically, about where Millennials will move once they start having kids.
Many seem to believe that – despite the current Millennial love affair with urban centers – much of this cohort is destined to repeat the pattern of the previous generation. Meaning, once the kids come along, they’re headed to the suburbs in search of bigger and more affordable housing.
If you look at the data, there’s a lot to support this prediction. Below is an interesting chart from Nathanael Lauster (Professor in Sociology at the University of British Columbia) that looks at net migration by age group for the City of Vancouver and the metro area.
Benjamin Couillard is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto whose research looks at things like residential choice and housing supply. And in this recently published paper, he studies the causal effects of rising housing costs on fertility. Here's what he found when examining US Census Bureau data:
...rising [housing] costs since 1990 are responsible for 11% fewer children, 51% of the total fertility rate decline between the 2000s and 2010s, and 7 percentage points fewer young families in the 2010s. Policy counterfactuals indicate that a supply shift for large units generates 2.3 times more births than an equal-cost shift for small units. This analysis concludes that the supply of housing suitable for families can meaningfully contribute to demographic sustainability.
Intuitively, it makes sense that rational adults might consider where they would put a child if they had one, or had one more, and consider the cost of this incremental space. Housing is expensive in major urban centers. Perhaps it's no surprise that Canada, which is known for its broadly unaffordable housing, has fallen into the "ultra-low fertility" category.
But I think this fertility-housing relationship is an important one to call out when considering appropriate public policies. Housing is often viewed through the lens of what bad things will happen if we build it. That's why we do shadow studies, force stepbacks, charge development charges (impact fees), and the list goes on.
What is harder to grasp is what happens when we don't build new housing. Most — or at least many — seem to agree that not building enough housing hurts overall affordability. But what this study also demonstrates is that not building enough family-sized housing is bad for making babies!
This has all sorts of socio-economic repercussions, one of which is that a country now has to rely more heavily on immigration in order to offset a shrinking population base. It becomes a larger economic problem. When framed this way, it makes me wonder: why do we tax new family-sized homes the way we do?
An alternative approach to encourage more infill family housing might be to eliminate development charges, building permit fees, parkland fees, and as many other government fees as possible on all three-bedroom or larger homes. And the reason you would do this is because the economic and demographic cost of not building is even greater.
Based on the work of Couillard, we know at least one of the outcomes: more babies.
Cover photo by Lotus Design N Print on Unsplash
The National Center of Health Statistics just released this update on births and birth rates for the United States in 2017. The provisional number of births last year was 3,853,472, which represents a 2% reduction from 2016 and the lowest number in 30 years. The general fertility rate was 60.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44, which represents a 3% reduction from 2016. Also a record low.
Here is a chart from the report showing birth rates for selected age ranges from 1990 to 2016 (the 2017 numbers are provisional):
I’ve written quite a few posts about family formation and, more specifically, about where Millennials will move once they start having kids.
Many seem to believe that – despite the current Millennial love affair with urban centers – much of this cohort is destined to repeat the pattern of the previous generation. Meaning, once the kids come along, they’re headed to the suburbs in search of bigger and more affordable housing.
If you look at the data, there’s a lot to support this prediction. Below is an interesting chart from Nathanael Lauster (Professor in Sociology at the University of British Columbia) that looks at net migration by age group for the City of Vancouver and the metro area.
Many of the age ranges have remained stable. Notable are the decline in the teenage (15-19) birth rate and the increase in births to women aged 40-44. The teenage birth rate declined 7% from 2016 and has averaged a decline of nearly 8% a year since 2007. And the birth rate for women aged 40-44 has generally been rising since 1982.
I am sure that you can all think of many explanations for the above phenomena without even diving into the report. I find all of this relevant because demographics obviously impact the real estate business and how we build cities.
What this chart shows is a flood of people in their late teens and early 20s migrating into the city (many of which are likely students), but then a fairly dramatic net loss of people leaving the city as they enter their 30s. The metro area, however, continues to grow – almost certainly because of people looking for more suitable family housing.
But this data is from 2006-2011. We don’t yet have the 2016 census data. And I suspect that we will start to see an increase in the number of people opting to remain in the city across many different urban centers.
There are some very real economic pressures that successful cities today have to contend with. But I believe that the desire to remain in the city is there for a lot of young people.
Many of the age ranges have remained stable. Notable are the decline in the teenage (15-19) birth rate and the increase in births to women aged 40-44. The teenage birth rate declined 7% from 2016 and has averaged a decline of nearly 8% a year since 2007. And the birth rate for women aged 40-44 has generally been rising since 1982.
I am sure that you can all think of many explanations for the above phenomena without even diving into the report. I find all of this relevant because demographics obviously impact the real estate business and how we build cities.
What this chart shows is a flood of people in their late teens and early 20s migrating into the city (many of which are likely students), but then a fairly dramatic net loss of people leaving the city as they enter their 30s. The metro area, however, continues to grow – almost certainly because of people looking for more suitable family housing.
But this data is from 2006-2011. We don’t yet have the 2016 census data. And I suspect that we will start to see an increase in the number of people opting to remain in the city across many different urban centers.
There are some very real economic pressures that successful cities today have to contend with. But I believe that the desire to remain in the city is there for a lot of young people.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
