Subscribe
This past weekend I saw a few people reacting on Twitter to this article by Wendell Cox talking about how Canadian families are being denied their preferred housing choice: the detached single family home.
The fact that the article is by Wendell Cox should tell you everything you need to know. But essentially the argument is that misguided planning policies are driving up the cost of housing and that we should, instead, be encouraging unfettered sprawl.
There’s lots to discuss here, but the first thought that actually came to mind was: “How would this article sound if we replaced all of the references to housing with references to cars?” In case you too are wondering that, this is how the first paragraph would read:
A new poll by Sotheby’s International Realty suggests substantial disappointment among Canada’s young urban families, unable to afford to purchase the types of [cars] that they prefer. The poll determined that young urban households in Canada strongly prefer [Aston Martins], but they are often “motivated by (financial) necessity to purchases [sic] [cars], especially [BMWs], they do not prefer.“
The article is clearly one-sided. I don’t disagree that there are people who – all things being equal – would prefer to raise a family in a ground-related single family home. Backyards serve a purpose, as do large basements equipped with beer fridges.
But all things are not equal. And there also people who value walkability, a reasonable commute, and the kind of urban amenities that come along with being in a dense city. I am one of those people.
Photo by Adrien Olichon on Unsplash
Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox recently published a piece in the Orange County Register called, “California’s housing crisis and the density delusion.” I’m sure you can guess where this is going, even if you don’t follow the work of Joel Kotkin. But if you do, you will know that he is an ardent supporter of suburbia and the single-family home.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
In reality, the YIMBY’s suggestion that new, dense housing will improve affordability for all is patently absurd. Decades of densification in Los Angeles has seen ever higher rents, displacing low-income, especially minority households. Many former transit customers have been driven to lower-rent areas with less transit service, precipitating a massive decline in ridership, even as billions continue to be spent building new rail lines. The Wiener Bill [my link, not theirs] could exacerbate this trend, and likely increase the need for low-income housing, already well beyond the capability of public coffers.
I fully appreciate the argument that high-density housing isn’t for everyone and that we shouldn’t be “forcing everyone back to the ‘glory’ days of the city of tenements.” But I disagree with many of their points, including the argument that density doesn’t encourage transit ridership. Density isn’t everything, but it’s an important something.
The article is definitely worth a read, particularly if you disagree with their positions. That’s how you avoid confirmation bias. I was trying to keep that in mind as I read it. Maybe it worked.
This past weekend I saw a few people reacting on Twitter to this article by Wendell Cox talking about how Canadian families are being denied their preferred housing choice: the detached single family home.
The fact that the article is by Wendell Cox should tell you everything you need to know. But essentially the argument is that misguided planning policies are driving up the cost of housing and that we should, instead, be encouraging unfettered sprawl.
There’s lots to discuss here, but the first thought that actually came to mind was: “How would this article sound if we replaced all of the references to housing with references to cars?” In case you too are wondering that, this is how the first paragraph would read:
A new poll by Sotheby’s International Realty suggests substantial disappointment among Canada’s young urban families, unable to afford to purchase the types of [cars] that they prefer. The poll determined that young urban households in Canada strongly prefer [Aston Martins], but they are often “motivated by (financial) necessity to purchases [sic] [cars], especially [BMWs], they do not prefer.“
The article is clearly one-sided. I don’t disagree that there are people who – all things being equal – would prefer to raise a family in a ground-related single family home. Backyards serve a purpose, as do large basements equipped with beer fridges.
But all things are not equal. And there also people who value walkability, a reasonable commute, and the kind of urban amenities that come along with being in a dense city. I am one of those people.
Photo by Adrien Olichon on Unsplash
Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox recently published a piece in the Orange County Register called, “California’s housing crisis and the density delusion.” I’m sure you can guess where this is going, even if you don’t follow the work of Joel Kotkin. But if you do, you will know that he is an ardent supporter of suburbia and the single-family home.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
In reality, the YIMBY’s suggestion that new, dense housing will improve affordability for all is patently absurd. Decades of densification in Los Angeles has seen ever higher rents, displacing low-income, especially minority households. Many former transit customers have been driven to lower-rent areas with less transit service, precipitating a massive decline in ridership, even as billions continue to be spent building new rail lines. The Wiener Bill [my link, not theirs] could exacerbate this trend, and likely increase the need for low-income housing, already well beyond the capability of public coffers.
I fully appreciate the argument that high-density housing isn’t for everyone and that we shouldn’t be “forcing everyone back to the ‘glory’ days of the city of tenements.” But I disagree with many of their points, including the argument that density doesn’t encourage transit ridership. Density isn’t everything, but it’s an important something.
The article is definitely worth a read, particularly if you disagree with their positions. That’s how you avoid confirmation bias. I was trying to keep that in mind as I read it. Maybe it worked.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog