Kate Webb in Metro reports on a study that details “a false sense of affordability in Canadian suburbs, according to a new study by a Victoria-based environmental economist.”
The study, set to be released on Monday by the University of Ottawa think tank Sustainable Prosperity, says the real estate mantra “drive until you qualify” is part of the reason suburban sprawl is outpacing the rate of growth in city centres by more than 160 per cent.
Census data shows about 40 per cent of Canadians now live in suburbs.
“The trend that Canadian towns and cities are gathering the data on what it now costs to approve sprawl developments and how much revenue they bring in, and the net losses, I think is going to be a game-changer,” said lead author David Thompson.
He said some expenses, such as gas, fall directly on the homeowner, while others, such as higher rates of chronic illnesses from inactivity, fall on taxpayers. Still others, such as increased mortality from car crashes, can’t be quantified in dollars.
It’s incredibly common, he noted, for homebuyers not to account for the long-term costs of transportation when deciding where to buy. By choosing to own one less car, for example, many could afford to live in denser, more walkable urban communities.
“If you took the $10,000 a year that it costs (the average Canadian) to own an extra small car, let’s take that as a mortgage payment, and you can now afford a house over the life of your mortgage that’s now worth, say $300,000 or $400,000 more.”
Suburbanites drive three times as much as urban dwellers, according to the study, yet pay only about half of the roughly $29 billion Canadians spend on roads every year through fuel taxes, vehicle permits and other fees. The rest comes out of general tax revenues.
Gordon Price, director of The City Program at Simon Fraser University, said the biggest problem with the legitimate fiscal and environmental case for density is people’s values.
“If you put a very high value on having a ground-oriented house with a backyard close to what you believe is a good school,” he said, “that will override both the tangible, hard costs, of the extra car, for instance, and the intangible ones, the amount of time that you’re having to drive.”
To download the full study, visit here.
Rob Carrick covered the same ground in the Globe earlier this month: Think living in suburbia’s cheaper? Think again
I am very glad to see this discussion happening on our major media outlets! (CBC has also covered this story.)
From the G&M article:
Interesting data point regarding the effect of the price of gasoline on people’s awareness of the overall costs of driving.
What will gas at $2.00 a litre do?
I agree with Gord that values – along with irrational fears of urban crime, urban schools, etc. – trump facts. There is a very long history of anti-urbanism and agrarian/arcadian thought in North America and I don’t see that going away any time soon. Very much related to that is the recent spate of articles about pushback from suburban residents when TODs and densification opportunities begins to appear on the municipal agenda.
Meanwhile, out here in the real world, the actual price difference between a 3 bedroom condo in Surrey and in downtown Vancouver is much much larger than $300k. So sure people might (might!) spend $10k a year on a car that they wouldn’t need to if they lived downtown, but there’s no real choice. Because the mortgage difference is more like $30-$40k, and most people can’t afford it.
And let’s not even begin to talk about houses.
I’m astounded at the smugness of the elites that can afford to live downtown, the way they look down on the suburbanites. People live out in the sticks because that’s all they can afford. Not because they’re selfish idiots who want some unsustainable lifestyle.
Come try bring up kids on a regular, insecure private-sector salary (the reality of Vancouver), and see where you end up living.
Maybe if the city focussed on building accommodation more suitable for families than speculators, people wouldn’t have to move to the suburbs. And maybe if the city wasn’t busily destroying all those commercial and light industrial workspaces where most people find a living, there would be less sprawl.
Sheesh.
Most of what you wrote is complete bollocks.
The article says that many people don’t consider the full cost of living in the suburbs. This is not “smugness” from “the elites”; this is simply an economist’s assessments of the facts. If you can point to where his assessment is wrong, then by all means do so. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks.
It seems you got your feelings hurt because you have divided the world into “us” (“suburbanites”) and “them” (“the elites that can afford to live downtown”), and you wrongly surmised that this article was attacking your group. If you have indeed accounted for all the costs of living in the suburbs, then this article is not about you.
I do largely agree with your last paragraph, though (ignoring the “sheesh”). And I bet the author of this study would as well. Another indication that you’ve got your “us” and “them” wrong.
The only thing foo bar got wrong is saying “People live out in the sticks because that’s all they can afford”. The people I know living in the burbs are generally quite happy to live there. They’ve made the age old human decision that having more living space is better than cramming into a small one. A car isn’t solely a commuting tool, it takes people many other places. I wouldn’t cram a family into 800 sq ft just to be able to boast that I can walk to a grocery store.
My comment stands. My math is correct.
“It’s incredibly common, he noted, for homebuyers not to account for the long-term costs of transportation when deciding where to buy. By choosing to own one less car, for example, many could afford to live in denser, more walkable urban communities.”
Trust me, people with regular incomes account very carefully for all their expenses when deciding where to buy. No, by choosing to buy one less car, people could NOT afford to live in downtown Vancouver, or practically anywhere in Vancouver. The price differential is sufficiently high that it makes no difference to the ordinary working person whether they have 1 car or 2 cars or no cars. It’s not a lifestyle choice, it’s harsh economic reality.
And yes the statement I quoted above, and the tone of the article in general, is smugness coming from the elite, who have no idea what economic barriers ordinary people face when choosing a place to live.
As it happens, I lucked out and got to live in Vancouver, so my feelings are not hurt. I also just happen to work in an industry where I have direct experience of what people face when they look for somewhere to live. You really think most people choose a 1 or 2 hour commute because they’re wedded to their cars and haven’t done the math?
Sheesh indeed.
First, thanks for replying. I wasn’t sure if you would. Second, sorry in advance for the long post.
—-
I think you’ve mischaracterised the debate. It is not about suburbs versus downtown. It’s about automobile-dependent sprawl versus development based around active transportation and public transit. The latter scenario can indeed happen in the suburbs. (Which is why I strongly support Surrey’s request for Skytrain.)
By talking about suburbs and downtown, you have created a straw man. Arguing against a straw man is futile and not constructive. Also, you’ll likely end up further convincing yourself of your own biases, because at the end of the day that’s what a straw man argument is made of.
I also think you’ve forgotten that this study is about all of Canada, not just Metro Vancouver. (And hence your anecdotal evidence doesn’t dispel anything.)
—-
“You really think most people choose a 1 or 2 hour commute because they’re wedded to their cars and haven’t done the math?”
I think many people (I don’t know about “most”) commute further than they need to because they wrongly think its saves them money or allows them to buy the 1800 sq foot house they “need” or want. And it seems that this study supports that theory. (I also have anecdotal evidence that supports the theory, but that’s not really worth much here.)
As a result of these long commutes, there are many negative consequences to the individuals and to society overall. That’s what the author of this study is trying to say. (And I agree.)
—-
I still don’t see any elitism. But maybe I’m just blind to it. Can you please show me where the study’s author has displayed any?
—-
“I also just happen to work in an industry where I have direct experience of what people face when they look for somewhere to live.”
“Trust me, people with regular incomes account very carefully for all their expenses when deciding where to buy.”
You may well be right in the end (though the evidence so far is not in your favour), but your own heuristic biases are not valid arguments in favour of any conclusion. If you want to debate a position, please bring facts and data, not anecdotal evidence and appeals to your own authority.
—-
“Maybe if the city focussed on building accommodation more suitable for families than speculators, people wouldn’t have to move to the suburbs.”
Do you think it is people who live in the inner city or people who live in the outskirts that mainly stand politically against making our cities less sprawling and less dependent on the automobile?
Here’s a few examples:
1. Toronto. Mayor Rob Ford stands staunchly in favour of an automobile-dependent transportation system, and (talk about smugness) commonly and unabashedly mocks those who live downtown. His support, and the support for the vast majority of the councillors who agree with his positions, is almost exclusively from outside the old City of Toronto, i.e., from the suburbs.
2. Calgary. Calgary recently held a municipal election. Go and read the policy platforms of the councillors elected in inner city wards and compare them to those elected in suburban wards. Councillors elected in suburban wards stand immutably in favour of increased sprawl. At least one of them (Ward 2) wants to reduce public transit even further, entrenching Calgary even more in automobile dependence. Mayor Nenshi, who is trying to slow down sprawl (he has no hope in hell of reversing it) will be in extremely tough with the new council, dominated by suburban wards.
3. Metro Vancouver. Metro Vancouver is the most advanced of Canada’s large cities in reducing sprawl, but it could be a lot better. And even in this setting, the voices speaking in favour of automobile dependence ant sprawl almost inevitably come from the suburbs. Which municipalities have argued in favour of hugely drastic bridge expansion, supporting automobile transportation? Which municipalities have argued in favour of replacing the Massey Tunnel with infrastructure to carry even more cars? Christy Clark wants to cut funding to TransLink. Do you think it’s a coincidence that she didn’t run in Point Grey this time?
Re. my comment about mischaracterising the debate. I am considering the nuance I may have missed.
I’m now thinking that the problem is with the labels. We all have mental images that pop up when we hear the labels “suburb” and “city centres”. What I should have said to you is that I think your mental images don’t line up with the author’s, and I think you’ve based your argument on those mental images rather than the supporting evidence that follows.
Mea culpa.
I can only comment on Vancouver, because that’s where I live. The city has followed a policy of allowing developers to build expensive, tiny condos in the dense inner city areas. Condos that are beyond the means of most single working people, and way beyond the means of most working families.
So what are people to do? Move to the suburbs. Not because they want to, but because they have to. Not because they don’t understand the costs (in time and money), but because they have no option.
I notice you claim my argument is a straw man and my evidence is anecdotal, but you do nothing to refute the fact that the price difference between accommodation in Surrey or Maple Ridge or further out and downtown Vancouver (the livable, walkable, sustainable place) is significantly higher than the savings on a car would bring.
And what’s more, the entire structure of transit is aimed at bringing people downtown, and moving people around efficiently in downtown. So when industry is pushed out to Burnaby and Richmond and Surrey, how exactly do people who live in those places (or even Vancouver) manage to commute on public transit? Here’s a trick – try take public transit to get from say east Van to Burnaby or New West or east Richmond.
In my opinion, what really drives sprawl in Metro Vancouver is the policy of the city of Vancouver to make it too expensive for working people to live there, and to drive the ugly industrial sector out in the suburbs as well. And then the experts look down on the people who make the solid economic decision to live where they can afford to live. Sure there are dinosaur politicians like Rob Ford and others who push car-dependent living, but they’re just taking advantage of the situation for their own ends. At least they don’t pretend to care about sustainability while pursuing policies that result in the exact opposite.
foo bar, I agree with you that there needs to be better transit (and walking and cycling infrastructure) throughout Metro Vancouver, and not just in the City of Vancouver. In fact, I strongly agree with that position.
I also agree that there should be more affordable housing for people in walkable, bikeable, transit-able places. And those places needn’t be in the City of Vancouver – there’s no reason why Surrey, Richmond, etc. can’t be that way also.
Thirdly, I agree that the City of Vancouver is a horrendously expensive place to buy a house. I also agree that Surrey and other suburbs have cheaper housing. This is not what I am disputing.
However, I disagree with your assertion that people who move to the suburbs do so after careful consideration of the costs. This is where I claim you have provided only anecdotal evidence and appeals to your own authority.
I also disagree that the study’s author has displayed any elitism. This is where I claim you’ve set up the straw man.
In certain places in this country (like Metro Vancouver), it may be cheaper for an individual family to move to the car-dependent suburbs than live in a walkable, etc., area. But this fact doesn’t rule out the possibility that many, many people have not considered transportation costs when buying a house. And it certainly doesn’t say anything about whether they’ve considered the societal costs.
“In my opinion, what really drives sprawl in Metro Vancouver is the policy of the city of Vancouver to make it too expensive for working people to live there, and to drive the ugly industrial sector out in the suburbs as well.”
“So what are people to do? Move to the suburbs. Not because they want to, but because they have to. Not because they don’t understand the costs (in time and money), but because they have no option.”
Interesting. Why, then, do so many residents of the suburbs keep voting in favour of car-dependency? Why is the region cutting back transit funding, when new highways and monstrous new bridges are being built for car-based transportation? Why the calls for expansion to the car-carrying capacity of the Massey tunnel (/bridge)?
If, as you say, people are moving to the suburbs despite where they would rather live, why do they keep voting in favour of measures to increase car dependence?
“And then the experts look down on the people who make the solid economic decision to live where they can afford to live.”
I just don’t know where you are getting this from. Can you please point me to where this study’s author has looked down on anyone? It seems to me like you are being unnecessarily defensive and divisive with statements like this.
Not only do I not see anyone being elitist, I also don’t see the author saying *anything* negative about people who have considered the full costs of their decision about where to live, and came to the conclusion that the suburbs are the cheapest place for them. The only place where I see even the slightest suggestion of such a thing is when he says that sprawling suburbs are costly to our society, but that’s hardly elitism; that’s just a fact.
“I can only comment on Vancouver, because that’s where I live.”
OK, but you didn’t seem to be too mindful of your limitation when you were disputing the study’s claims with phrases like “meanwhile, out here in the real world…”. Just because you have found an exception, doesn’t mean the whole study is wrong. (Unless the study makes claims about 100% of the people, which it doesn’t.) And it certainly doesn’t mean anything about the character or attitude of the study’s author, or of anyone else who has come to similar conclusions.
In The Guardian today on what makes people happy in cities.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/01/secrets-worlds-happiest-cities-commute-property-prices
“A Swedish study found that people who endure more than a 45-minute commute were 40% more likely to divorce. People who live in monofunctional, car‑dependent neighbourhoods outside urban centres are much less trusting of other people than people who live in walkable neighbourhoods where housing is mixed with shops, services and places to work.”