Tag Archives: United Kingdom

From prisons to penthouses

affordable housing, housing, housing crisis, Vermont, , , ,

Given that Britain, like the United States, is beset by an affordable housing shortage, this headline in the Financial Times is an attention-grabber: “UK to build 9 prisons and sell outdated ones for housing.”

Actually, this is not a new idea. The U.K. apparently already has some experience in converting old prisons to hotels and student housing. So does Germany. Here’s what became of a “correctional facility” in Berlin: Apartment house. prison-berlin

 

 

 

And in North America, former prisons or jails have been transformed into all manner of things options: homeless shelters, office/retail complexes. Here’s an example of conversion to affordable housing in Vancouver…

prison-vancouver

 

 

 

 

 

Lower-income people are not necessarily the likely suspects for occupying these developments. In Massachusetts, somehow, luxury apartments found their way into the old Salem Jail, seen here in its former state: prison-salem

 

 

 

Repurposing prison property isn’t going to solve the affordable housing problem, obviously, but maybe it’s worth thinking about this in another way: Democrats and Republicans, both, are talking about substantially reducing the nation’s inflated prison population, particularly by free inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes. One might expect that would lead to a substantial reduction in corrections budgets, which could in turn free up public money for other purposes … such as affordable housing.

Consider Vermont, where the annual corrections budget of around $140 million vastly exceeds the amounts allotted two of the state’s major affordable housing stewards, the Vermont Housing & Conservation Board (around $15 million) and the Department of Housing and Community Development ($10 million).

What might those numbers look like if the state readjusted its priorities and stepped up its commitment to affordable housing? Including, of course, affordable housing for former inmates.

And you thought things were bad here!

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , ,

Now and then it’s nice to get an international perspective even on the most domestic of concerns, like housing. Poking around for comparisons, we stumbled across the “11th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey: 2015.” This is an interesting document, but rather limited:

  • The domain is restricted to six Anglophone countries,  plus Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong.
  • The “affordability” measure reflects home prices, not rental rates. That measure, the “median multiple,” is the median house price divided by gross annual household income. A median multiple of 3.0 or below is deemed “affordable”; 3.0 to 5.0, “moderately affordable”; and above that, least affordable.”

Anyway, the United States comes off pretty well among this selective international contingent, with an average multiple of 3.4. Canada (3.9), Japan (4.4), Singapore and the U.K. (5.0) are all higher, as are New Zealand (5.2), Australia (5.5) and Hong Kong (17.0). Ireland comes in at most affordable, at 3.0

(Hong Kong’s figure is astounding, but we suspect it’s not uniquely high, world-wide, and we look forward to future surveys that include the likes of Qatar and Luanda, Angola.)

hongkong2

Here’s the survey’s summary of 378 “major markets”:

 Housing Affordability Ratings by Nation: All Markets
 

Nation

 Affordable (3.0 &

Under)

 Moderately Unaffordable (3.1-4.0) Seriously Unaffordable (4.1-5.0) Severely Unaffordable (5.1 & Over)  

Total

  

Median Market

 

 

Australia 2 1 15 33 51 5.5
Canada 5 16 9 5 35 3.9
China (Hong Kong) 0 0 0 1 1 17.0
Ireland 3 1 1 0 5 3.0
Japan 0 1 1 0 2 4.4
New Zealand 0 0 3 5 8 5.2
Singapore 0 0 1 0 1 5.0
United Kingdom 0 3 14 16 33 5.0
United States 88 97 32 25 242 3.4
TOTAL 98 119 76 85 378 3.8

As usual, major market” data exclude Vermont. Vermont’s “median multiple,” by our rough calculation using numbers from Vermont Housing Data, hovers around 4.0 (3.7, based on adjusted family income, and 4.2 based on household income).

By this measure, we’re considerably less affordable than cities in the western hinterlands:

 Affordable Major Metropolitan Markets
Rank Nation Metropolitan Market Median Multiple
1 U.S. Detroit, MI 2.1
2 U.S. Rochester, NY 2.4
3 U.S. Buffalo, NY 2.6
3 U.S. Cleveland, OH 2.6
5 U.S. Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2.7
5 U.S. Grand Rapids, MI 2.7
5 U.S. Pittsburgh, PA 2.7
5 U.S. Saint Louis, MO-IL 2.7
9 U.S. Atlanta, GA 2.9
9 U.S. Indianapolis, IN 2.9
9 U.S. Kansas City, MO-KS 2.9
9 U.S. Louisville, KY-IN 2.9
13 U.S. Columbus, OH 3.0
13 U.S. Oklahoma City, OK 3.0

We do have plenty of license for Schadenfreude, however, when we look at these places:

 

 10 Least Affordable Major Metropolitan Markets
Rank: Affordability
Least Rank (Out of Median
Affordable 86) Nation Metropolitan Market Multiple
1 86 China Hong Kong 17.0
2 85 Canada Vancouver, BC 10.6
3 84 Australia Sydney, NSW 9.8
4 82 U.S. San Francisco, CA 9.2
4 82 U.S. San Jose, CA 9.2
6 81 Australia Melbourne, VIC 8.7
7 80 U.K. London (GLA) 8.5
8 79 U.S. San Diego, CA 8.3
9 78 N.Z. Auckland 8.2
10 77 U.S. Los Angeles, CA 8.0

 

According to the survey, the median multiple in most of these countries remained in the manageable 3.0-plus range for many years until rural-to-urban migration ran up against land-use restrictions (“urban containment polices”) that drove up prices and made housing unaffordable for middle-income people as well as the poor. The survey’s authors argue that urban containment policies — “smart growth” would be one example — unduly limit housing development on the urban “fringe.”

Hmmm. Are they saying that sprawl is the price of affordability?