From CNU Public Square:
Those who are familiar with the price premiums attached to places with high walkability and associated amenities may be surprised by the findings of Christopher Leinberger and Michael Rodriguez of George Washington University.
The authors of the recent report Foot Traffic Ahead published a piece in The Washington Post explaining why moderate-income households end up spending less of their hard-earned money when living in highly desirable walkable urban places.
First, metro areas with higher Walk Scores tend to generate higher incomes, helping to offset higher housing costs. …
“Moderate-income households in the most walkable urban metros, such as Washington and San Francisco, spend more on housing than moderate-income households in the most drivable metro areas, such as Las Vegas and Tampa. But the difference is less than 1 percent of income for housing (41.5 percent in walkable metros vs. 40.9 percent in drivable metros).
Second, lower transportation costs more than make up for the small difference in income spent on housing.
First, metro areas with higher Walk Scores tend to generate higher incomes, helping to offset higher housing costs. …
“Moderate-income households in the most walkable urban metros, such as Washington and San Francisco, spend more on housing than moderate-income households in the most drivable metro areas, such as Las Vegas and Tampa. But the difference is less than 1 percent of income for housing (41.5 percent in walkable metros vs. 40.9 percent in drivable metros).
Second, lower transportation costs more than make up for the small difference in income spent on housing.
“Moderate-income households in drivable metros spend 29 percent of income on transportation, because of the high cost of car ownership. In metro Washington, moderate-income households only spend 17 percent of income on transportation, primarily because of our transit system,” they write. Foot Traffic Ahead examines the 30 largest metro areas in the US.
Yet making places more walkable places does not solve the problem. Housing should be closer to 30 percent of income, even for moderate income households, Leinberger and Rodriguez say. “Overall, walkable urban places are the most socially equitable. But the rent is still too damn high.”
We can provide more attainable housing in places that are walkable. That can be accomplished through policy and increasing supply. Increasing transit in a metro area is one way to boost the supply.
Yet making places more walkable places does not solve the problem. Housing should be closer to 30 percent of income, even for moderate income households, Leinberger and Rodriguez say. “Overall, walkable urban places are the most socially equitable. But the rent is still too damn high.”
We can provide more attainable housing in places that are walkable. That can be accomplished through policy and increasing supply. Increasing transit in a metro area is one way to boost the supply.
.
In Vancouver Metro (as in most places), we rarely make the link between more transit and housing affordability. The latter may be the most discussed topic in the region, but transit expansion has dropped off the table (save for funding the major rail projects) because of the referendum.
The Province is now desperate to address affordability (mainly by putting pressure on the municipalities to increase supply) but makes no effort to move forward with any other transportation projects than major roads and bridges (which will arguably reduce affordability when both H + T are calculated together.)
Once again, both the foresight of the regional vision (“Cities in a Sea of Green”) and its abandonment largely go without comment. Yet there is no other vision that could serve us as well to address the most urgent problems of the moment.
The funding for rapid transit is easily available without increasing taxes by charging more for parking in residential neighborhoods and by lowering public sector salaries & overly generous benefits to private sector norms. Since the Vancouver council is unwilling to do either the province is right to refuse any additional funding for transit. In addition upzoning or allowing narrower houses or townhouses instead of single family houses is also happening at far too slow a pace.
Vancouver willingly and knowingly encourages gridlock.
Sigh. Is the barrier to more dense and more transit-viable communities either, The single family residential areas of: Vancouver west, Kerrisdale & Shaughnessy, Marpole, Champlain Heights, Strathcona, etc., etc., up to Burnaby, or is it the ALR?
Many reasons, such as lack of land from ALR, mudflats, Langara public golf course, and but another is the lack of RAPID transit options, for example pushing east from downtown, along Broadway, or to the northshore via a widened Lionsgate bridge with a subway on it. More bike lanes and/or slow (diesel) buses won’t cut it. Excessive immigration is another. Many reasons.
One of the reasons that Vancouver is so attractive is the good transit we have (compared to other western Canadian cities.) It’s why a lot of people choose to move here.
Give your head a shake. People move here for many reasons, such as water orientation, mountains, mild climate or people they already know, but transit is NOT one of them.
Tha’ts totally untrue. I moved here for the transit. Its incredible compared to a city like Halifax where I would have HAD to own a car. While the housing costs are slightly higher here, the overall cost of living for a single male in the downtown core is lower than Halifax.
I also moved here because the public discussion includes transit and it is generally recognized as important and contributing to the development of the city whereas small backwards east coast cities debate whether its even required instead of how big should we make it.
Well, okay, for some people I suppose transit was not a big factor but for me it was very important. Not the only one of course, there was also the good economy, affordability of food and progressive culture.
This is interesting. Why Tokyo residential prices have slowed while San Francisco and London have gone up:
http://on.ft.com/2aQ8b0H
This link might work better:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60.html
If this still does not work then put this into a Google search:
‘Why Tokyo is the land of rising home construction but not prices’