New Geography

Blog

  • There is no “Free Market” Housing Solution

    The common line used by advocates of housing affordability has been that the solution lies in “free markets”. Yet this “free market” solution does not address the fundamental problem which is really a political one.

    This true fundamental problem is particularly evident here in Britain, the leader in house price inflation and housing financial bubbles since the 1970s. In their recent report Global capital markets, the McKinsey Global Institute has confirmed what has been shown in recent Demographia surveys.

    The root of this problem lies with an elite agenda that is highly ideological. The ideology at work is environmentalism, making a moral virtue of the retreat of political and commercial elites from the industrial production of housing.

    The preference is for interest payments on a fund of mortgage debt rather than the effort of turning a profit from development, let alone construction. Professionals like estate agents, planners, architects, and bankers are certainly in collusion with that elite ideology.

    That is not to say there is a conspiracy to plan a housing bubble. That is too crude. There is clearly regulation and legislation. On 24 November 2009 the Housing Minister John Healey confirmed that Britain will be the first country in the world to require zero carbon homes as a matter of law from 2016. Britain is the world leader in green ideology.

    John Healey
    All of the newly built British housing will have much better insulated walls, windows, roofs and floors. The clear aim of the government is to keep reducing the energy consumption of all new homes to be measured in kilowatt-hours per square metre of floor area per year. New Labour hope to make it law that total energy consumption is no more than 46 kWh/m2/year for semi-detached and detached homes, and then no more than 39 kWh/m2/year for all other homes. The energy efficiency standards will be applied from 2016, subject to yet another consultation on the Code for Sustainable Homes, announced at the end of 2006, and technically published for use on a voluntary basis in 2007. The building regulations get revised in 2010, 2013, and 2016 leading to this legal requirement for maximum energy consumption in all new homes.

    Healey says that “zero carbon” is a concept that will apply to a new home at the “point of build”. ‘We are not going to regulate through this policy how occupants live in them,’ he says. However the Code for Sustainable Homes assumes patterns of behaviour. Environmentalists within and without government will argue that behaviour needs to change. They will be suggesting all sorts of intrusions into daily life.

    British environmentalism couldn’t be more ideological, and more of a barrier to the production of affordable housing. The planning system has been “greened”. The mood is against development, and planning approvals for new land for new housing are hard to obtain. The zero carbon requirement will only apply to around the 100,000 new homes that will be built annually, while the existing stock is around 26 million homes. Healey is also going to regulate existing housing, and is not just looking at the residential sector.

    I am sure politicians like Healey don’t want their pursuit of “zero carbon” buildings to mean that fewer buildings are built. I am sure there are some environmentalists who will be pleased that building activity is in decline. The logic of green thinking entails that the most energy efficient thing to do is not to build more buildings at all.

    It is green not to build new homes to meet demographic demand. Let people modify their behaviour, say the environmentalists, and live together in as much of the existing stock as can be refurbished. It also happens that the existing stock is highly mortgaged, and the vast majority doesn’t want their homes to fall in value. An indefinite policy of green refurbishment of the homes that already exist and a future of house price inflation are highly compatible. That suits the mortgage lenders and the government. The commitment to “zero carbon” allows government to appear virtuous in its legislation for the new build sector.

    This suits the financial markets as well, since it guarantees house price inflation by making it difficult to meet the demographic demand for homes. Environmentalism offers more and more reasons not to build. Green thinking ensures that house price inflation can be sustained through a bubble, and projected beyond the bursting of that period of financialisation into the next.

    As capitalism ”greens” itself, capitalists continue to profit, while not meeting the fundamental demands of the people for housing. But simply restoring “the free market” will not solve the problem. In an old industrial country like Britain, there are ever more people who don’t earn enough to buy a home even at the “affordable” price of two and a half times their gross annual household income, which is the Demographia measure of affordability.

    This reality has a great appeal to what Robert Bruegmann refers to as “the incumbents club” – established homeowners, increasingly older, and those with inherited money. That majority want homes to be an appreciating asset, not a depreciating utility, like a pair of trousers, or a car. They want their home to appreciate in value, and they want to be green. Most people want to be greener and better off.

    Being anti-development for green reasons allows the incumbents to preserve their wealth, while making mundane opposition to new house building, or the attempt to constrain “sprawl”, seem virtuous. People don’t wake up thinking that they will inflate the value of their home by resisting sprawl in principle. Instead they oppose new development in the mistaken belief that Climate Change is caused by sprawling development. It is common for people to think that sprawl is bad for the planet, even while living, mostly with a mistaken sense of guilt, in the sprawl.

    By hoping for a “free market” solution to the problem of unaffordability, Hugh Pavletich of Demographia assumes that it is politicians, businessmen, and professionals who have distorted the market for reasons of narrow and immediate self-interest. Yet that is not how people think: they believe their environmentalism is morally above self-interest. They are saving the planet in their minds by blocking new building, and by their opposition to sprawl. The incumbents’ club members can feel virtuous at little cost to themselves and don’t worry too much about house price inflation. Of course there is no actual Club. There is no conspiracy. Homeowners simply share a self-interest in raising the value of their home, and tend to also want to show how selflessly green they are.

    This all has had the effect of making the lending of mortgages on inflated land values a much larger business than the construction of homes. No-one planned to cause a sequence of bubbles, but Britain’s desperate social dependence on sustained house price inflation can’t be brought to an end easily.

    The only way to stop national or regional housing bubbles recurring is the establishment of the freedom for everyone to build a home on cheap agricultural land without any government or professional hindrance except in matters of technical building regulations. Fire should not spread, and buildings should not fall down. But even building regulations can become ideological rather than technical. The British building regulations, as Healey has made clear, will also push energy efficiency standards to illogical extremes of peak performance in an attempt to address Climate Change. Even while the supply of new homes reduces

    The political freedom to build wouldn’t be a “free market” because not everyone is able to raise the finance to buy cheap land and pay for construction. The idea of a “free market” is a long running ideological myth. But the universal freedom to build would mean people are free to attempt to raise the finance to buy land and build.

    More importantly, the freedom to build would undermine the financialisation of the housing market. If everyone was free to build on cheap land the incumbents’ club would have to compare the value of their existing home to the cost of building a new one. Mortgage lenders would not be able to lend over the cost of construction unless they felt secure in doing so. The security of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act would be removed for financiers. Government, the finance system, planners, or the incumbents’ club will be ideologically opposed to that for a host of environmental reasons. Britains mostly want to be greener but with renewed house price inflation, while no-one wants to make an argument explicitly for un-affordability. This may be confused and deluded, but it is an ideology promoted by the British government.

    However, ideas can be challenged and changed. One step is to understand that there is no “free market” housing solution. Getting rid of the 1947 denial of the freedom to build doesn’t mean an end to planning. Homes will still need to be planned, just as they were before 1947. But planners will not have the power to stop people from building. There is a need to politically end the environmentalist denial of the freedom to build in an industrial democracy. With a population free to build the finance system would be more interested in cheapening new construction on lower cost land, and not preoccupied with securing the financialisation of periodic but persistent house price inflation. A freedom to build is very much not a right to a home. It is a freedom from the obstructions of planners, with the weight of government legislation behind them. A freedom that is denied to protect the environment, a denial that sustains house price inflation.

    The market is not capable of being a “free market”. Capitalism is a system of control by political and commercial elites, and their professional employees. British capitalists tend to be less interested in industry, which is held to have caused Climate Change, and more interested in finance these days. What is precisely missing in the face of the morally selfless capitalist ideology of environmentalism is an ideology in favour of raising the productive capacity of the construction industry based on a universal sense of immediate and material self-interest. Getting rid of the 1947 planning legislation is a limited attempt to reconnect house building with the cost of construction and household incomes by removing the means by which house price inflation is sustained. Homes would be more of a utility than an investment in Britain, and we would cease to be world leaders in housing based financial bubbles.

    To do that requires us to oppose those who would be world leaders in the environmental ideology that industrial production is a problem for the planet. In Britain we need to set people free to build housing to the best of their abilities within a capitalist planning system stripped of the legal powers it gained in 1947. Innovative in their day, British planning now only sustains housing bubbles and restricts people’s opportunity for decent housing.

    Ian Abley, Project Manager for audacity, an experienced site Architect, and a Research Engineer at the Centre for Innovative and Collaborative Engineering, Loughborough University. He is co-author of Why is construction so backward? (2004) and co-editor of Manmade Modular Megastructures. (2006) He is planning 250 new British towns.

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on Politico regarding Obama

    Barack Obama may be our first African-American president, but he’s first got to stop finding his muse in Scandinavia. With his speech for the Nobel, perhaps he’s showing some sign of losing his northern obsession.

    Joel on Politico

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on Instapundit regarding capping emissions

    Joel on Instapundit

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on USA Today regarding migration

    “Migration overall is going to slow just for the simple reason that the population is getting older,” says Joel Kotkin, a fellow at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., and author of the upcoming The Next 100 Million: America in 2050. “People will be moving less for lots of reasons.”

    Joel on USA Today

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on California

    An alarming graph that every California politician should see was part of a recent North Bay talk by Forbes economics columnist Joel Kotkin. It showed California unemployment rising to 14.4 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and remaining above 12 percent into 2011.

    Joel on The North Bay Business Journal

  • Contributing Editors MORLEY WINOGRAD and MIKE HAIS on millenials

    Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, co-authors of the insightful Millennial Makeover, also want government to do more for young people. Writing on the newgeography.com Web site, they endorse proposals for creating internships, loan forgiveness programs, and “mission critical” jobs in such fields as health care, cyber-security and the environment. Plus, “increased entrepreneurial resources [should] be made available to youth.”

    Morley and Mike on the Washington Examiner

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on PressPubs regarding cities and mobility

    Newsweek ran an article in October by Joel Kotkin suggesting that nothing will be as surprising about the 21st century America as its settledness. For more than a generation Americans have believed that “spatial mobility” would increase and, as it did, feed an inexorable trend toward rootlessness and anomie

    Joel on PressPubs

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on Seattle Weekly regarding Seattle

    ​At least according to Joel Kotkin, an expert in urban futures. As Kotkin notes, “smart” is now synonymous with “green.” And while our neighbors to the south are consistently on the top of any list of the greenest cities in the country, Kotkin says that’s a narrow way of defining “smart.” Why? Because commuting to work by bike only does so much when you’ve got fewer jobs to commute to.

    Joel on Seattle Weekly

  • Executive Editor JOEL KOTKIN on Cyberhillbilly regarding industrial America

    So who benefits from this collective ritual seppaku? Hegemony-seeking communist capitalists in China might fancy seeing America and the West decline to the point that they can no longer compete or fund their militaries. A weakened European Union or U.S. also won’t be able provide a model of a more democratic version of capitalism to counter China’s ultra-authoritarian version.

    Joel on Cyberhillbilly

  • Is Obama Separating from His Scandinavian Muse?

    Barack Obama may be our first African-American president, but he’s first got to stop finding his muse in Scandinavia. With his speech for the Nobel, perhaps he’s showing some sign of losing his northern obsession.

    On the campaign trail, Obama showed a poet’s sensitivity about both America’s exceptionalism and our desire to improve our country. His mantra about having “a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas” resonated deeply with tens of millions of Americans.

    Obama’s more recent recasting as a politically correct Nordic seemed out of sync. His speech in Oslo – a surprising defense of American values and role in the world – must have shocked an audience that all but the most passionate courtiers suspect he does not deserve.

    But the bigger challenge will come when he rushes off to Copenhagen to push for his politically dubious climate change agenda. This will take a more serious break from his unfortunate tendency to identify first with the global cognitive elite.

    This is a particularly European, and particularly Scandinavian, affliction. In these countries professors, high-level bureaucrats, and corporate chieftains usually dominate the media, policy making and public perceptions. This constitutes an essential part of what is often called the “Scandinavian consensus” model.

    It works pretty well there. Historically homogeneous, affluent and well-educated Scandinavians generally accept working hard and giving up much for people for the poorer members of societies. These admirable attitudes reflect noble Nordic virtues of thrift, study and social trust.

    These values also work reasonably well in Nordic parts of America, such as in North Dakota. When a local economist told Milton Friedman “In Scandinavia we have no poverty”, he replied: “That’s interesting because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either.”

    As Obama may finally be learning, America is not Scandinavia, outside a handful of places. It is a big, amazingly diverse country with an expanding population. In a country made up of so many crunched together cultures an expansive welfare state faces many problems. (This is one reason northern Europe is having such a difficult time with its immigrants.)

    In a diverse society, you cannot assume that everyone will play by the rules. Coexisting with very different kinds of people, Americans tend to be less than enthusiastic about paying high taxes to support them.

    Demographics are also a major factor. Our relatively youthful and socially diverse population includes a large component of people, particularly males, with limited skills and education. Yet, at least until they were blindsided by falling poll numbers and stubbornly high unemployment, Obama’s administration treated the recession as if it could be cured Euro-style by simply adding more employment in government, education and medical care.

    Similarly the president’s to date dogmatic embrace of an extreme climate change agenda seems one more saleable to Danes or Swedes than people in the Dakotas or South Carolina. After all, they are well-positioned to absorb the costs. Norway and Sweden enjoy huge reserves of hydropower, the largest sources of renewable fuels. Norway also has lots of oil to boot and fellow traveler Netherlands still boasts strong reserves of natural gas.

    The dense land use policies associated with the climate change agenda fit better into small compact cities like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo than their sprawling American counterparts. In America, the vast majority lives in sprawling suburbs and small towns. With the exception of the Northwest few parts of the U.S. rely on hydropower, with most of the country reliant on coal, oil and natural gas.

    Then there are political risks to Obama’s dogged embrace of the alarmist “climate change” agenda. Recent Gallup, Pew, and Rasmussen surveys show weakening interest in global warming and increasing levels of skepticism. Today we even have considerable disputes over whether the temperature is even warming. Certainly a series of cold winters and mild summers might make some casual citizens a bit skeptical.

    Even one of the scientists whose email was hacked recently at the UK’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit wondered, “Where the heck is global warming?” The revelations, now widely known as Climategate, make clear that some of the science – and the scientists – behind the most apocalyptic predictions are suspect, a view now held by a majority of Americans, according to a recent Rasmussen survey.

    Yet so far, Obama appears blissfully unaffected by the swirling controversy. But the man has a full capacity to surprise. Perhaps he will understand that just because the media and his climate advisors have circled the wagons, this may be a case where the “crowds” may be onto something that the self-proclaimed experts would rather ignore.

    Perhaps if President Obama had studied history, rather than law, he might realize that “smart” (i.e. highly credentialed) types often get things terribly wrong. After all, a century ago eugenics – that some races were intrinsically superior to others – stood as the reigning ideology of the scientific community. Back in the 1970s, the scientific consensus embraced by his science advisor, John Holdren, predicted imminent mass starvation, a catastrophic decline in resource availability, and a bleak future for all developing countries, including China and India. This assessment proved widely off the mark.

    Of course, having committed himself to today’s climate orthodoxy, Obama may find it difficult to reverse course. Not only does he seem ill-disposed to challenging the cognitive elites but he also gains support from the well-funded warming lobby – rent-seeking utilities, “green” venture capitalists, investment bankers and urban land speculators – who hope to wrest huge fortunes from a strict carbon regime.

    If he wants to regain his effectiveness, however, the president needs to realize that these groups and the science establishment are just a small fraction of the country that elected him. His speech in Oslo may be the first sign he may be waking up from his Scandinavian slumber to become the assertive, independent American leader that we need.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin Press early next year.