1

Democratising Prosperity:Democratising Prosperity:Global Perspectives onGlobal Perspectives onHousing AffordabilityHousing Affordability

Urban Consolidation SeminarUrban Consolidation SeminarSydneySydney

By Wendell CoxBy Wendell Cox1 August 20051 August 2005

The GreatAustralian Dream

Sydney

A BROADERA BROADERISSUEISSUE

The issue is notThe issue is not……

Land useLand use

CitiesCities

The issue isThe issue is……

Quality of LifeQuality of Life

Social EquitySocial Equity

Future of theFuture of theNationNation

-40%-20%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

GDP perCapita(AUS)

Sydney: Median House Price

Inflation Adjusted

Housing Affordability Crisis in AustraliaEXAMPLE OF SYDNEY

The American DreamSt. Louis

23 July 2005

Housing Affordability in the USATHE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION

Swedish DreamStockholm

Democratizing Prosperity

Japanese DreamSapporo

The Role of Home Ownership

UNDERSTANDING “URBAN SPRAWL”UNDERSTANDING “URBAN SPRAWL”

PUBLIC TRANSPORT: HOPELESS RHETORICPUBLIC TRANSPORT: HOPELESS RHETORIC

BACKGROUND: DEMOCRATISING PROSPERITYBACKGROUND: DEMOCRATISING PROSPERITY

HOME OWNERSHIP AND PROSPERITYHOME OWNERSHIP AND PROSPERITY

OUTLINEOUTLINE

Not enough people going to the same

place at the same time

Don Valley Parkway& Commuter Rail

Toronto

Public Transport: Hopeless RhetoricPublic Transport: Hopeless Rhetoric

Understanding “Urban Sprawl”

NicolaiCeaucescuFather of

Smart Growth

Social HousingBucharest

Spanish DreamBarcelona

Threatening the Dream

THREATENING THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN DREAMTHREATENING THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN DREAM

PORTLAND: FAILED MODELPORTLAND: FAILED MODELPortland: The Reality of Failure

New SprawlingCommercial Development

Portland Suburbs

The Anti-Sprawl TheologyCONDEMNING WHAT THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND

2

NOT A BRIEF NOT A BRIEF FOR SPRAWLFOR SPRAWL

LONE MOUNTAINLONE MOUNTAINCOMPACTCOMPACT

“ … absent a “ … absent a material threatmaterial threatto otherto otherindividuals orindividuals orthe community, the community, people shouldpeople shouldbe allowedbe allowedto live andto live andwork wherework whereand how and how they like.”they like.”

The GreatGerman Dream

Leipzig

Understanding Urban Sprawl

Sprawling Paris 1954-1999 Paris: Avenue de l’opéra

Paris to Tourists & Urban Planners

Tourist Paris is Not ParisDIFFERENCE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA & EUROPE: HISTORY

Population82%

OutsideCity of Paris

Employment67%

OutsideCity of Paris

The GreatFrench Dream

Paris

Paris Missed by Tourists & Planners

3

Tourist (&Planner’s)

Map of Paris

Paris AtlasWhere People Live

and Work

MODERN MODERN ““SPRAWLSPRAWL”” = AUTO ORIENTED= AUTO ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT

Merriam Webster: Merriam Webster: ““the spreading of urban the spreading of urban developments on undeveloped land near a developments on undeveloped land near a citycity””

Sprawl is Sprawl is ““suburbanisation.suburbanisation.””

Sprawl is Sprawl is ““urban growthurban growth”” –– nearly all urban nearly all urban growth in the highgrowth in the high--income world has been income world has been suburban in recent decades.suburban in recent decades.

Sprawl = Sprawl = Automobile oriented development Automobile oriented development (especially in Australia, the US, Canada, (especially in Australia, the US, Canada, Western Europe and Japan).Western Europe and Japan).

Milan

Toronto

Tokyo

Portland

The GreatAustralian Dream

Sydney

Urban Sprawl is SuburbanisationHISTORY OF URBAN GROWTH IS HISTORY OF SPRAWL

050

100150200250300350400450500

1981 2002

Hectares(x1,000,000

Australia: No Shortage of LandAGRICULTURE & FARM LAND: 1981-2002

Reduction=Land Area of

Victoria,Tasmania +South Island

(NZ)

Urbanisation2001 (<0.3%)

Human Footprint

Reduction1981-2002

The Declining Human FootprintMIRRORS TREND IN CANADA & UNITED STATES

Agriculture& Urban

SubstantialProductivity

Improvements 0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1800 1850 1900 1950 2000

Paris

New York

London

Population perSquare Kilometer

Urban Areas: Historical Densities

Los Angeles

4

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000

Pre-Auto Japan W. Europe Australia Canada U.S.

Universality of Auto-Based SprawlURBAN DENSITIES COMPARED TO PRE-AUTO ERA

UrbanPopulation

PerSquare

Kilometer

1900 Now

Suburbanisation in Barcelona

Core

Suburbs

The GreatSpanish Dream

Barcelona

Suburbanisation in Athens

CoreSuburbs

The GreatGreek Dream

Athens

Core

Suburbs

Suburbanisation in Tokyo

Urbanisation:7,000

Square KM

5

The GreatJapanese Dream

Tokyo

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Los Angeles

Toronto

Sydney

Auckland

Melbourne

Adelaide

Edmonton

Brisbane

PerthAtlanta

Urban Area DensitiesAUSTRALIAN & NEW WORLD SIMILARITIES

UrbanPopulation

PerSquare

Kilometer

SURPRISESSydney More Sprawling than Los Angeles

Los Angeles Least Sprawling in New World

The GreatRomanianNightmareBucharest

Ceaucescu: Understood Curbing SprawlFATHER OF URBAN CONSOLIDATION

Toronto Area Green Belt PlanMUCH PAIN, LITTLE GAIN

2000LandArea

Additional2031

“Smart Growth”

Additional2031

“Businessas Usual”

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Australia WesternEurope

Canada UnitedStates

Asia

The Automobile is Here to StayNO ONE PROPOSES RETURN TO PRE-AUTO ERA

Share ofMotorized

TravelUrban Areas

Over3,000,000

•• No serious proposals.No serious proposals.

•• Would require dismantling more than Would require dismantling more than 85% of urban area & resettlement.85% of urban area & resettlement.

•• Auto oriented urban area is here to Auto oriented urban area is here to stay.stay.

•• Densification worsens the quality of Densification worsens the quality of life.life.

Restore Public Transport City?REJECT AUTO BASED URBAN AREA?

6

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

Under 750 750-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-7,999 8,000 &Over

Suburbanisation Dilutes CongestionTRAFFIC INTENSITY IN WORLD URBAN AREAS

Vehicle Hours/Square Kilometer

By PopulationDensity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Under 750 750-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-7,999 8,000 & Over

Suburbanisation Speeds Up TrafficTRAFFIC SPEEDS IN WORLD URBAN AREAS

1990:KM/H by

PopulationDensity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dallas-FortWorth

Houston LosAngeles

Atlanta Sydney Paris Tokyo

Suburbanisation: Faster Work Trips INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES

MinutesOne-Way

0

5

10

15

20

25

More Air Pollution at Lower Speeds

CO

VOCNOx

Based UponIndex of 1.00 atLowest Point forEach Pollutant

ByKM per Hour

NOxCONMHC

ROADWAYROADWAYAIR POLLUTIONAIR POLLUTIONPROGRESSPROGRESSIN EUROPE (EUIN EUROPE (EU--15)15)

Gross levels downGross levels down60% or more in 1160% or more in 11yearsyears

7

Job Location17.9%

Other Location17.9%

Neighborhood25.9%

House20.5%

Other Reasons17.7%

Reason forNeighborhood Choice

US Census Survey

Hong Kong:Average Work Trip

7.7 KM

“Jobs“Jobs--Housing Balance” MythHousing Balance” MythTHE RECORDTHE RECORD

Urban Villages: Insignificant & Futile”JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE:” THE RECORD

Example:London Area New Towns

WelwynAverage Work Trip DistanceWelwyn Residents

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Core (1939) Ring 1: 1959 Ring 2: 1979 Ring 3: Later

>700 USA MunicipalitiesFees/Capita: 2000

Exaggerating Suburban CostsUS SUBURBS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN CORES

Sewer

Water

Density3.020

Density1,880

Density1,090

Density800

•• How did we manage to afford the last How did we manage to afford the last 60 years?60 years?

•• Bankrupt suburbs predictions: 1960sBankrupt suburbs predictions: 1960s

•• Studies: Theoretical, not real data.Studies: Theoretical, not real data.

•• $225 billion US cost $225 billion US cost claimclaim (to 2025)(to 2025)$30 per capita annually$30 per capita annually

Suburban Cost ResearchU.S.A. “CANNOT AFFORD” SUBURBANIZATION?

$100,000

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

Atlanta Sydney

Impact Fees per Dwelling UnitTALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

$6,500 or Less

Suburban Cost Research“ILL INFORMED & DISINGENUOUS”

“…“… if the urban policies if the urban policies …… were not so were not so ill informed and presented in such a ill informed and presented in such a disingenuous way, there would not be disingenuous way, there would not be a need for this contribution to the debate a need for this contribution to the debate on Australiaon Australia’’s citiess cities””

-- Patrick Troy (Patrick Troy (The Perils of Urban ConsolidationThe Perils of Urban Consolidation).).

8

NOT SINCENOT SINCECOPERNICUSCOPERNICUS

… has the… has theconventionalconventionalwisdom wisdom been so been so wrong.wrong.

no imperativeno imperativehas beenhas beendemonstrated.demonstrated.

•• Strong PostStrong Post--War population growthWar population growth

•• People moving from rural areas to urban areasPeople moving from rural areas to urban areas

•• Housing growth well above population growthHousing growth well above population growthAverage household size down 1/3Average household size down 1/3

•• Larger, more efficient commercial structuresLarger, more efficient commercial structures

•• Employment growth well above population growthEmployment growth well above population growthContributing factor: More women in the workforceContributing factor: More women in the workforce

•• Affluence Affluence

Factors Driving SuburbanisationIT IS MORE THAN POPULATION GROWTH

Not enough people going to the same

place at the same time

Don Valley Parkway& Commuter Rail

Toronto

Public Transport: Hopeless Rhetoric

CBD13%

Outside87%

Public Transport10%

Autos90%

Public Transport Work Trip ShareIMPORTANT TO CBD, A SMALL PART OF THE MARKET

Sydney Area Employment

CBD: WorkTrip Share

Elsewhere: WorkTrip Share

Public Transport70%

AutoCompetitivePublicTransport

Auto-Competitive Public TransportONLY TO DOWNTOWN

Most Employment is not DowntownMost Employment is not Downtown

Nor West Business ParkBaulkam Hills

9

High or Low Density in SuburbsMAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Atlanta Graystanes (Sydney)

Halle Neustadt, Germany

Auto Competitive Public TransportSYSTEM DESIGNED FOR PORTLAND (800M GRID)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Urban Density & Transit Competitiveness HIGH INCOME WORLD URBAN AREAS OVER 3,000,000

PUBLICTRANSPORTCOMPATIBLE

DENSITY

TOO DENSE FOR CARS

NOT DENSEENOUGH

FOR PUBLICTRANSPORT

CARCOMPATIBLE

DENSITY

Population/Square KM

Pop

ulat

ion

(Mill

ions

)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Before Rail: 1989 Latest Data: 2003

Urban Rail in the USA DEMAND DRIVEN BY AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL $

1989-2003LOS ANGELES

1 Metro Line3 Light Rail lines6 Suburban Lines

800 KMA$13 Billion

Auto

PublicTransport

Auto

Public Transport

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Melbourne Boston Brussels Zurich Portland

Misleading or “Doubtful” InformationUNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

MELBOURNE 2030 PLANReduction of

Auto Market Share inPercentage Points Goal is many times

previous record

2020Goal Since

1980

Portland: Failed ModelCHEERLEADERS ARE UNRELIABLE REPORTERS

New Auto-OrientedCommercial Development

Portland Suburbs

10

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Los Angeles Portland Sydney

Urban Area Population DensitySYDNEY, LOS ANGELES EXCEED PORTLAND

136,000

4,0000

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Suburbs Core

Portland: Most Growth SuburbanMETROPOLITAN AREA: 2000-2004

Core +0.8%Suburbs +9.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Portland Sydney

Public Transport Overall Market ShareSYDNEY 5 TIMES PORTLAND

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

Portland Sydney

Public Transport Work Trip ShareSYDNEY MORE THAN DOUBLE PORTLAND

9.4%7.6%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

1980 2000

Portland: PT Work Trip Share DropsBEFORE LIGHT RAIL & AFTER: 1980-2000

1.001.051.101.151.201.251.301.351.40

1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Kansas City

PortlandTravel Time Index(Peak Travel Delay)

Traffic Congestion in PortlandONE OF LARGEST INCREASES IN THE NATION

MediumUrban Area

Average

1990-2040 Plan58% Traffic IncreaseAlready Exceeded

11

1986

Portland: Transit & “Compact City”

Houston: Highways & Market

2001 1986

2001

Among GreatestCongestion Increases

From Worst to 14th

Worst Congestion

Portland v. Houston: Traffic1986-2001: 30 MINUTE PEAK AUTO TRAVEL DISTANCE

050,000

100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000400,000450,000

PortlandUrban Growth

Boundary: Acres

2040Plan

Adopted1997

Actual2004

1997-2004Trend

to2040

1997Actual

The Bloating Urban Growth BoundaryPORTLAND RETREATS – RESPONDING TO REALITY

-30%-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

LAPR

VW

DC RSB

SAC NY

DFW

BOS

SAN SD VB PHI

TSP SF

ORL NO HO

UM

IA SJBA

LST

LPH

X LV ATL

SEA

CHI

MSP KC

PGH

CIN

COL

IPS

CLV

MIL

DEN

DET

POR

Portland Housing Prices Up Most1990-2000: HOUSING MULTIPLE (US CENSUS)

PortlandPortland•• AntiAnti--densification referendum (2/3)densification referendum (2/3)•• Property Rights referendum (2/3)Property Rights referendum (2/3)

•• Requirement to pay for economic Requirement to pay for economic loss from zoning changesloss from zoning changes

Other RetreatsOther Retreats•• MinneapolisMinneapolis--St. PaulSt. Paul•• New JerseyNew Jersey•• MarylandMaryland•• Suburban Washington, DCSuburban Washington, DC

Urban Consolidation: Not Sustainable RETREAT: PORTLAND AND ELSEWHERE

The GreatSwedish Dream

Stockholm

Background: Democratising Prosperity

Luxury CondosNear

Rocinda FavelaRio de Janeiro

Every Society Has Rich HouseholdsEvery Society Has Rich Households

12

Affluent Economies Have Achieved aDemocratisation of Prosperity

Rocinda FavelaRio de Janeiro

What DistinguishesSocieties is the

Extent of PovertyOverwhelming Reality

$0$5,000

$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

United States

Japan

WesternEurope

Australia

US Poverty Threshold

History of the World is theHistory of Poverty

GDP-PPPPer Capita

1990$A(OECD)

$0$5,000

$10,000$15,000$20,000$25,000$30,000$35,000$40,000

1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990

United States

Japan

Argentina

Australia

US Poverty Threshold

Economic Progress is Not AutomaticThe Case of Argentina

GDP-PPPPer Capita

1990$A(OECD)

WesternEurope

The GreatJapanese Dream

Sapporo

Home Ownership and Prosperity

100%

74% 72%78% 80% 80%

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

Australia UK USA France Sweden Japan

Purchasing Power Parity Discontinuous

Axis

GDP/Capita: 1990

13

100%

76% 75% 73%78%

73%

50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%

100%

Australia UK USA France Sweden Japan

Purchasing Power Parity Discontinuous

Axis

GDP/Capita: 2003 STRENGTHSTRENGTHOF THEOF THELIBERALLIBERALECONOMIESECONOMIES

“Competitive“Competitiveintensity”intensity”

Examples:Examples:Less restrictiveLess restrictive

land regulation land regulation

RetailingRetailing

$75

$100

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Germany Australia

Competitive IntensityHOME BUILDING: AUSTRALIA & EUROPE (1990S)

Competitive IntensityECONOMIC FREEDOM AND AFFLUENCE

Home 43%

Household 17%

Savings 12%Securities 8%

Other 21%

Houses: A Principal Share of WealthABS: 1996

0%50%

100%150%200%250%300%350%400%450%500%

1939 1971 2001

Autos perHousehold

Real Per CapitaGDP/Household

Democratisation of Prosperity:Associated with Personal Mobility

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1800-1850 1850-1900 1900-1950 1950-2000

United StatesGrowth

x1,000,000

Democratisation of Prosperity isAssociated with Urban Growth

Urban

Rural 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Canada UnitedStates

WesternEurope

Japan Australasia

Canada from 1951, US from 1950

Others from 1965

Democratization of Prosperity isAssociated with Suburbanization

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1947 2001

Renters

Democratisation of Prosperity:Associated with Rising Home Ownership

Home Owners

Spanish DreamBarcelona

Threatening the Dream

BASICBASICECONOMICECONOMICPRINCIPLEPRINCIPLE

SCARCITY &SCARCITY &RATIONING TEND TORATIONING TEND TORAISE PRICESRAISE PRICES

Rationing land forRationing land forhousing development housing development tends to raise house tends to raise house prices. prices.

Higher housing prices Higher housing prices lead to lower rates of lead to lower rates of home ownership.home ownership.

Raises housing prices

AustraliaPortlandDenver LondonToronto

Urban Growth Boundaries & Green Belts

Raises housing prices

AustraliaCalifornia

Excessive Development Impact Fees

Raises housing prices

Northern Virginia, Boston

Down-zoning

IMPACTSEXAMPLESSTRATEGIES

Smart Growth:Strategies & Housing Impacts

15

ANDRES DUANYANDRES DUANY

There is NO There is NO question that question that urban growth boundariesurban growth boundariesand that elaborate and that elaborate environmental public environmental public processes processes increase the cost of increase the cost of housing by creating housing by creating scarcity. (And donscarcity. (And don’’t t tell me otherwise, tell me otherwise, because I am not stupid, because I am not stupid, nor am I inexperienced, nor am I inexperienced, nor do I have nor do I have underdeveloped powers underdeveloped powers of observation).of observation).

Italian DreamMilan

“Sun Rises

in the West”

studies……our evidenceour evidencesuggests that suggests that

zoning zoning and other and other land use land use controls controls play the play the dominant dominant role in role in making making housing housing expensive.expensive.

HARVARDHARVARDSTATE OF THESTATE OF THENATION’S NATION’S HOUSINGHOUSING20052005

“Development “Development constraints constraints drive up drive up land and land and construction construction costs as well costs as well as prevent new as prevent new housing from housing from keeping pace keeping pace with rising with rising demand.”demand.”

WACHOVIA BANKWACHOVIA BANK

““We have identified We have identified three major factors three major factors which have worked which have worked to restrain supply to restrain supply over theover thepast decade, past decade, all of which remain all of which remain very much alive very much alive and well todayand well today. . The first is the The first is the spread of the spread of the Smart Growth, Smart Growth, Slow Growth and Slow Growth and No Growth movements No Growth movements throughout the country.throughout the country.””

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

United Kingdom(Strong Land Rationing)

Land Rationing Raises Housing PricesREAL HOUSING PRICES IN THE UK & EUROPE

EU Outside UK(Little land rationing)

U.S. DEPARTMENTU.S. DEPARTMENTOF HOUSING &OF HOUSING &URBAN URBAN DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENTREPORTREPORT

“A number of “A number of communities … communities … have used smart have used smart growth rhetoric to growth rhetoric to justify restrictingjustify restrictinggrowth and limiting growth and limiting developable land developable land supply, which lead to supply, which lead to housing cost housing cost increases.”increases.”

16

LAND USELAND USEREGULATIONREGULATIONRETARDSRETARDSECONOMICECONOMICGROWTHGROWTH

“metropolitan areas “metropolitan areas with stringent with stringent development development regulations regulations generate less generate less employment employment growth growth than expected than expected given their given their Industrial bases”Industrial bases”

AN ALARM ONAN ALARM ONPLANNING IN THEPLANNING IN THEUNITED KINGDOMUNITED KINGDOM

“The nightmare“The nightmarescenario for the scenario for the British economy British economy could be that a could be that a ‘tipping point’ was‘tipping point’ wasreached where thereached where thefinancial servicesfinancial servicesindustry of theindustry of thecity decamps tocity decamps tocheaper citiescheaper citieselsewhere in elsewhere in Europe.”Europe.”

InternationalInternationalHousingHousingAffordabilityAffordabilityRatingsRatingsAndAndRankingsRankings

2005.022005.02

Kiwi DreamAuckland

House Price/Income MultipleA SIMPLIFIED MEASURE

•• Median house price divided by median Median house price divided by median household income.household income.

•• Permits ready comparison, national and Permits ready comparison, national and internationalinternational

•• Simplified and understandableSimplified and understandable

•• Historical value: Approximately 3.0Historical value: Approximately 3.0

US: House/Income Multiple: 1970-2000GROWTH CONTROLS: LARGEST PRICE ESCALATION

-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Aver

age

Mis

siss

ippi

Nor

th D

akot

aAr

kans

asIo

wa

Loui

sian

aM

inne

sota

Virg

inia

Conn

ectic

utNe

w M

exic

oKa

nsas

Texa

sAl

aska

Wyo

min

gAl

abam

aO

klah

oma

Mis

sour

iO

hio

Wis

cons

inSo

uth

Dako

taNe

bras

kaNe

w J

erse

yTe

nnes

see

Geo

rgia

Illin

ois

Kent

ucky

Verm

ont

Flor

ida

Neva

daW

est V

irgin

iaNe

w H

amps

hire

New

Yor

kSo

uth

Caro

lina

Mar

ylan

dDe

law

are

Penn

sylv

ania

Indi

ana

Idah

oNo

rth C

arol

ina

Rhod

e Is

land

Mic

higa

nU

tah

Ariz

ona

Mai

neM

onta

naHa

wai

iCo

lora

doM

assa

chus

etts

Was

hing

ton

Calif

orni

aO

rego

n

Widespread Land Rationing

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

SAN

HOU

DFW

PGH

STL

KC TSP

IPS

PHI

ORL VB CI

NCP

SAT

LBA

LDE

TCO

LPH

XCL

VNO MIL

WD LV

RSB

CHI

MIA

PRV

SAC

DEN

POR

SEA

BOS NY SD LA SJ SF

House Value:Household Income

Multiple: 2000 Census

Housing Affordability: US Urban Areas2000 CENSUS

Land Rationing

More Affordable

17

2.74

4.11

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Little Land Rationing Land Rationing

US House/Income Multiple: 2000CENSUS DATA: LARGE URBAN AREAS

£0

£50

£100

£150

£200

£250

£300

Development Not Permitted Development Permitted

Land Rationing Raises Land Prices500 TIMES INCREASE IN S.E. ENGLAND

Land Price:90 Hectare Farm

SoutheastEngland

(Leunig, LSE)

Housing Cost Multiple: 2004AUSTRALIA, NZ, CANADA & USA: OVER 1M METRO AREAS

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

BUF

RCH

STL

IPS

PGH

DFW

SAN KC

OKC AT

LAU

SLV

LSL

CHO

UCO

LO

TTNV

LCG

YM

ON

MEM NO RD

UPH

XPH

IM

SP VBPO

RO

RL TSP

TOR

MIL

DEN

BAL

CHI

SEA

BOS

VAN

WD

PER

SAC LV

AUK

BRS

ADL

MEL

NYC

MIA SF SYD

SD LA

Land Rationing

Fast Growing &AffordableAtlantaDallas-Fort WorthHouston

Median House Price/Median Household Income

Housing Cost MultipleAUSTRALIA & NORTH AMERICA EXAMPLES

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00IP

S

DAL

ATL

HOU

OTT

PHX

PER

BRS

ADL

MEL

SYD

Median House Price/Median Household Income

Land Rationing

-40%-20%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

GDP perCapita(AUS)

Sydney: Median House Price

Inflation Adjusted

Housing Affordability Crisis in AustraliaEXAMPLE OF SYDNEY

0

2

4

6

8

10

DFW

ATL

HOU

PHI

CHI

SEA

BOS

WDC NY MIA SF LA

Example UsingHouse US Price toHousehold Income

Multiple: 2004

Elements of Housing Price MultipleCONCEPTUAL MODEL

Underlying Housing Cost to Income Multiple

Speculation

Land Scarcity Premium

18

4.94.2

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Atlanta Sydney

Mill

ions

Metropolitan Area Population: 2003TALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

382,000

132,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Atlanta Sydney

Metropolitan Area Growth: 2000-2003TALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

2.6

8.8

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

Atlanta Sydney

House Price Multiple: 2004TALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

Low Interest RatesBoth Urban Areas

700

2,200

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Atlanta Sydney

Urban Population DensityTALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

Population perSquare Kilometer

1%12%

99%88%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Atlanta Sydney

Auto & Public Transport ShareTALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

72 79

0102030405060708090

Atlanta Sydney

Daily Travel Time per CapitaTALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY AND ATLANTA

Minutes

Similar Results forDallas-Fort Worth, Houston Comparisons with Sydney

19

•• Similar interest ratesSimilar interest rates

•• Sydney housing affordability much worseSydney housing affordability much worse

•• Atlanta largerAtlanta larger

•• Atlanta housing demand greater (faster growth)Atlanta housing demand greater (faster growth)

•• Sydney urban population density higherSydney urban population density higher

•• Both have high auto market shares, but Sydney has Both have high auto market shares, but Sydney has larger public transport share.larger public transport share.

•• Less travel time in Atlanta.Less travel time in Atlanta.

ConclusionsTALE OF TWO CITIES: SYDNEY & ATLANTA

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

HomeOwners

The Democratisation of Prosperityis not Complete

Renters

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Australia Now Perth Rate Sydney Rate

HomeOwners

Renters

EventualRates Based

Upon HousingPrice Multiples

Land Rationing: Toward a Nation of Renters:Restoring Inheritance as the Deciding Factor

70% 40% 15%

STRONGSTRONGECONOMIC ECONOMIC GROWTH:GROWTH:ISISNECESSARYNECESSARY

ButBut“Smart“SmartGrowth:” Growth:” constitutes constitutes an assaultan assaulton theon theeconomy.economy.

The GreatCanadian Dream

Toronto THERETHEREISISNO NO REASONREASONTOTOSTOPSTOPDEMOCRATISINGDEMOCRATISINGPROSPERITYPROSPERITY

Valencia(Spain)Suburbs

Living in the “Future Tense”THE UNIVERSALITY OF ASPIRATION

20

The GreatRomanian Dream

Bucharest

The Great Australian DreamHAS BECOME THE GREAT UNIVERSAL DREAM

The Great Universal DreamVISITING THE NEW HOUSE IN BARCELONA

The Great Universal DreamEMERGING IN MEXICO

The GreatMexican Dream

Guadalajara

The Great Universal DreamEVEN IN HONG KONG

The GreatChinese Dream

Hong Kong(Fairview Park)

PLANNINGPLANNINGREFORM:REFORM:Back to Back to Basics:Basics:

Not Not telling telling peoplepeoplehow to live…how to live…

Rather,Rather,helping helping people livepeople liveas theyas theypreferpreferParis Suburbs

People’sRoute

Planner’sRoute