This isn't new. And it's maybe a bit random. But we're probably overdue for a break from housing debate. So here is an interesting art project by Hans Hemmert (who is part of the German collective Inges Idee).
Called Personal Absurdities (1997) , the project consisted of parties in Berlin in which everyone was equalized to the same height -- 2 meters to be exact. The was done through blue stryofoam platform shoes ranging from 5 to 43cm in height.
Of course, if you already happened to be 2m tall, then no platforms were needed. If you were over 2m tall, I'm not sure how that was handled, but presumably the bouncer stopped you at the front door.
All of this seems interesting to me because most of us probably don't fully appreciate the extent in which height impacts social dynamics. There are countless studies suggesting that we tend to have a more positive reaction to people who are tall -- and this is in everything from business to who we vote for.
In fact, this connection between height and leadership is so strong that studies have found that, when faced with a strong likeable leader, we often overstate their height in our minds. We think they're taller than they actually are because of how strongly we associate height with the ability to lead.
So what happens when you strip away this dynamic and you equalize everyone's height -- even if just for one night of revelry? I would be curious to find out. So if any of you are planning a "same height party", please feel free to invite me. Thanks.
The typical way to measure carbon emissions is to think about it in terms of geography. You pick a particular place, such as a country or a city. You add up all the emissions that are taking place within its boundaries. And you're then left with a territorial carbon footprint. If you've done any research on carbon emissions or climate change, you've likely encountered this method of accounting for carbon.
But there's a flaw with this logic.
The problem with this method is that it considers each geography to being more or less independent. For example, let's say you live in Philadelphia and you happen to be the owner of something called a computer. With territorial accounting, the carbon emissions associated with you powering your computer would get attributed to Philadelphia and the emissions associated with the actual production of the computer would get attributed to wherever it was made. Let's say it was China.
One of the problems with this approach is that it penalizes the places that make a lot of stuff and it privileges the places that don't make as much stuff, even if they may actually be the consumers of far more stuff. This might make you feel better about your life decisions if you happen to live in a dense urban knowledge economy that doesn't really make anything physical -- but is it entirely accurate?
An alternative measurement approach is consumption-based carbon accounting. The goal here is to capture all lifecycle emissions associated with a particular good or service, and then attribute it back to the consumer that arguably triggered the emissions. In the case of our Philadelphia computer example, the emissions associated with the production, transportation, and consumption of the computer would also get attributed locally to Philadelphia, instead of to China.
This more complex method of carbon accounting -- which is something that the University of Pennsylvania has been working on over here (hence the Philadelphia computer example) -- can be instructive for a whole host of reasons. It also has some relevance to city building.
It is widely understood that building up is more sustainable than building out. Because when you build out, you end up doing things like forcing people into cars. But the other side of this equation is that cities tend to also house a lot of rich people, and household wealth is a massive driver of carbon emissions when you account for them based on consumption. Some would argue it is more important than urban density.
In my opinion, none of this is to suggest that dense urban environments are bad. The point here is that territorial carbon emissions don't fully capture the emissions caused by high consumers who might happen to live in an otherwise efficient urban environment. You can live in a compact apartment and walk to work, but what else are you consuming? And how might these consumption patterns change based on built form?
For more on this topic, check out this report by Daniel Cohen and Kevin Ummel (of the University of Pennsylvania) called, "The case for neighborhood-level carbon footprints."
Deeply affordable housing is mostly infeasible to build.
This is why you don't see the market naturally building this kind of housing on its own. It, for the most part, doesn't make any economic sense to do so. So this is also why the US has fabricated things like low-income housing tax credits . They are a way to make up the economic shortfall that exists with low-income rental housing and get the private sector building this kind of housing.
We sometimes try to convince ourselves -- or maybe it is a way of shirking responsibility -- that there can be such a thing as no-cost affordable housing through things like inclusionary zoning. But I think we all know that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is ultimately going to need to pay. The big question, of course, is who should that be?
By definition, we acknowledge that the people who will ultimately live in these affordable homes cannot afford to pay market rates. So by default, the subsidies will need come from somewhere else. But again, from where and from who? Should it be specific people who pay or should it be mostly everyone who pays?
If we return to the Toronto building industry's favorite topic right now -- development charges -- you'll see that under the current rates, every new 2 bedroom or larger apartment that is constructed must pay $3,727 toward affordable housing. Under the proposed rates, this will increase to $12,545 for every new large apartment. It's by far the largest proposed percentage increase (237%) and also one of the largest service items.
This raises two interesting philosophical questions.
One, should the buyers of new housing be responsible for contributing to affordable housing in this way? Because what we are in effect saying to these people is, "Hey, you can afford to buy a new market rate home, so we're going to collect some additional money from you -- $12,545 to be exact -- so that we can try and help those that aren't in the same position as you. We're also going to mandate additional affordable homes within your building and we'd like you to subsidize those too." This is one way to redistribute wealth.
But if the goal is to try and create more broad-based affordability, an alternative approach might be, "Hey, you already own a home and it has gone up a lot in value, so we're going to collect some additional money from you over time so that we can try and help those that aren't in the same position as you." This would be the property tax approach. It's probably not perfect, but might it be a more fair and equitable way to redistribute wealth?
The second interesting philosophical question has to do with whether this is consistent with the dogma that growth should pay for growth. The idea behind development charges (also known as impact fees in some parts of the world) is that they should pay for the cost of new development. This makes complete sense. When you build new housing you certainly need some additional stuff -- everything from additional school capacity to emergency services.
But the question here is whether the construction of new housing in and of itself creates a direct need for more affordable housing, and therefore should be charged for it. Asked in the opposite way, if you weren't building this new housing, would you then no longer need this affordable housing, just like you no longer need that additional school capacity?
This is definitely not the case. In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. If you don't build any new housing in a growing city, you actually exacerbate the problem of affordability. So here's a provocative thought. Rather than a charge, should this affordable housing line item actually be a credit towards each new project given that it benefits affordability?
While it may not make any economic sense to build affordable housing, I think that many of us would agree that it makes a lot of social sense to build affordable housing. We know that our cities are at their best when they are both diverse and inclusive. The problem is that we can't agree on who should pay for it.
Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
