City Sector Model

Demographia International Housing Affordability – 2023 Edition Released

Wendell Cox — Mon, 20 Mar 2023 20:28:58 -0400

Demographia International Housing Affordability rates middle-income housing affordability in 94 major housing markets in eight nations: Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. This edition covers the third quarter (September quarter) of 2022.

Assessing Housing Affordability: Often housing affordability is evaluated by simply comparing house prices. However, without consideration of incomes, housing affordability cannot be assessed. Housing affordability is house prices in relation to incomes.

Demographia International Housing Affordability uses the “median multiple” to rate middle-income housing affordability (Table ES-1). The median multiple is a price-to-income ratio, which is the median house price divided by the gross median household income (pre-tax).

Middle-income housing affordability is rated in four categories, ranging from the most affordable (“affordable”) to the least affordable (severely affordable):

Housing markets are metropolitan areas, which are also labor markets. In a well-functioning market, the median priced house should be affordable to a large portion of middle-income households, as was overwhelmingly the case a few decades ago.

Housing affordability comparisons can be made, (1) between housing markets (such as comparison between Adelaide and Melbourne) or (2) over time within the same housing market (such between years in Adelaide).

Housing affordability in 2022 is summarized by nation in Table ES-2.

International Housing Affordability in 2022: Housing affordability in 2022 continued to reflect the huge price increases that occurred during the pandemic demand shock. Some housing affordability improvements have since occurred and more are likely as the demand shock is hopefully replaced by more normal market trends.

Hong Kong is the least affordable market, with a median multiple of 18.8. Sydney was the second least affordable at 13.3, Vancouver at 12.0, Honolulu at 11.8, San Jose at 11.5, Los Angeles 11.3, Auckland 10.7, Melbourne at 9.9, Toronto at 9.5 and San Diego at 9.4. The most affordable market is Pittsburgh, at 3.1, followed by Rochester at 3.2, Cleveland and St. Louis, at 3.5.

How Housing Unaffordability Intensifies Inequality: There is a broad view that deteriorating housing affordability is an existential threat to the middle-class.

In Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle-Class, the OECD finds that the middle-class faces ever costs of living and that rising owned house prices are the “main driver of rising middle-class expenditure.”

Much of the difference in the cost of living between metropolitan areas (within nations) is explained by housing affordability differences. Additionally, a growing body of research indicates a strong association between the declining fertility rates that afflict so many nations and the housing affordability and cost of living crises.

Moreover, as housing becomes more unaffordable, households migrate to more affordable markets. This is illustrated by the substantial net movement occurring from housing markets in the United States and Canada (especially California markets, along with Toronto and Vancouver).

French economist Thomas Piketty has described growing wealth inequality around the world. Matthew Rognlie, of Northwestern University has shown that much of this inequality is traceable to rapidly rising house values, which results in worsening housing affordability.

This is not surprising, since the dominant form of land use regulation around the world has become urban containment, which severely restricts housing construction on the urban periphery, which has been associated with material deterioration in housing affordability and the worsening cost of living crisis.

Where land use policy contributes to deteriorating housing affordability, the resulting increase in inequality can be viewed as an outcome of public policy. Solving the housing affordability problem requires reforms that restore the competitive market for land in highly regulated markets and avoiding land use policies that worsen affordability where competitive land markets continue to exist.

Rognlie suggests that, “A natural first step to combat the increasing role of housing wealth would be to re-examine these regulations and expand the housing supply.”

Elaboration and sources are in the full report. Click here to read and download the full report.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photo: Future Atlas (futureatlas.com/blog) via Flickr under CC 2.0 License.

The 15 Minute City: An Idiotic Dream

Randal OToole — Thu, 16 Mar 2023 20:28:58 -0400

One of the arguments against single-family zoning is that separating housing from other uses forces people to drive to shops, work, and other destinations. Urban planners want to redesign cities so that people can walk to most of those destinations. They even have a name for it: the 15-minute city, meaning everyone can reach all of their primary destinations within a 15-minute walk.

In a paper published in January, urban analyst Alain Bertaud has demolished this goal. Noting that Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo made this goal a part of her re-election campaign in 2020 and continues to promote it in office, he looked at the city to see what would need to be done to meet this goal.

Bertaud starts out by calculating that a person can reach about 740 acres in a 15-minute walk on city streets. Based on the average population of the municipality of Paris (as opposed to the urban area), an average of 77,000 people live in any given 740 acres of land. Within this 740 acres, there are an average of 59 bakeries and 197 food stores. There are also enough elementary schools to be within 15 minutes of every part of the city. Thus, there is no need to “create” a 15-minute city; Paris already is one.

So why, then does anyone drive in Paris? Bertaud notes that Paris has 1.6 jobs for every worker, with more than 51,000 jobs within a 15-minute walk of typical residents. Yet lots of people drive to work and more than half the workers take more than 30 minutes to get to work. Only 12 percent take 15 minutes or less.

The problem, of course, is there may be 51,000 jobs within walking distance of your home, but that doesn’t mean that your job is within a 15-minute walk from your home. Commuting makes up less than 20 percent of trips in the United States, and it is probably similar in France. That means, when people decide where to live, their work location isn’t necessarily the controlling factor.

No doubt the same logic applies to other possible destinations. I grew up within a 15-minute walk of one of Portland’s most prestigious high schools, but I decided to go to a different school that was a one-hour bus ride away. There might be 197 food stores within 15 minutes of where I live, but they might also be expensive and I’d prefer to save money by shopping at a hypermarket that is several miles away.

Bertaud fears that, when cities achieve the dream of putting everything within 15 minutes of every resident and these residents continue driving anyway, the cities will impose more draconian regulation to try to reduce driving. The mayor of Paris, for example, wants to make it illegal to drive through central Paris. France has also forbidden large booksellers from selling books at a discount so as to preserve the viability of small bookshops within walking distance of everyone’s homes.

Considering the kind of regulations we already have in the United States — such as the Oregon rule forbidding landowners in most rural areas from building a house on their own property unless they own at least 80 acres, actively farm it, and earned $80,000 a year from farming it in two of the last three years — it isn’t hard to imagine similar kinds of rules being imposed here.

Even if Paris already is a 15-minute city, the 15-minute policy would be a lot harder to implement in American cities. Other than Manhattan, no city in America has Paris-like densities of more than 66,000 per square mile. American urban densities averaged under 2,400 per square mile in 2010. That’s not dense enough to put all the services people need within a 15-minute walk.

For example, the nation has about 38,000 supermarkets, nearly all of which are located in the 105,000 square miles of urban areas. That about 2.75 square miles per supermarket, which is about 1,760 acres, more than twice the amount of land within a 15-minute walk. Thus, even if supermarkets were perfectly evenly distributed across the urban landscape, more than half the people wouldn’t be within 15 minutes of one of them. That’s one reason why planners have such a mania for increasing urban densities.

We’re not going to double urban densities, especially when the doing so will fail to eliminate driving anyway. As urban economist Edward Glaeser once wrote (as quoted in Bertaud’s paper), the 15-minute city “should be recognized as a dead-end which would stop cities from fulfilling their true role as engines of opportunity.”

This piece first appeared at Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Randal O'Toole, the Antiplanner, is a policy analyst with nearly 50 years of experience reviewing transportation and land-use plans and the author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.

Photo: Dr. Bob Hall via Flickr under CC 2.0 License

The Future of Cities: The Future of Chinese Cities

Li Sun — Fri, 10 Feb 2023 19:28:58 -0500

China represents the cutting edge of 21st century urbanism. Its successes and failures will shape global perceptions of city life, not only in that country but around the world. When future historians assess the 21st century, China, along with India, will likely be their focus. The key shapers, discussed below, include demographics, the impact of digitization, environmental protection, and a looming class divide.

This book is being published as a series, with permission of the American Enterprise Institute. Each week a new chapter will be published, with links to each chapter.

Click or tap a link below to read or download each chapter. (PDFs open in new tab or window)

Introduction: Welcome to the Urban Future – Joel Kotkin

I. The Big Picture for Global Geography

American Aspiration is Metropolitan – Ryan Streeter

The Urban Future: The Great Dispersion – Wendell Cox

The Future of the Big American City is Not Bright – Samuel J. Abrams

II. The Variety of Urban Experiences

The Future of Chinese Cities – Li Sun (new this week)

Li Sun is a lecturer in sociology and social policy at the University of Leeds. Her main research interest is China’s urbanization and governance. Sun also serves as a consultant to the UN, World Bank, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. She is the author of Rural Urban Migration and Policy Intervention in China: Migrant Workers’ Coping Strategies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).

California: Most Urban and Densest Urban State

Wendell Cox — Mon, 23 Jan 2023 20:28:58 -0500

The 2020 Census reveals California to have both the highest urban population density and the highest urbanization share of total population among the states. The urban areas of California have a population density of 4.790 per square mile, above second ranked New York, at 4,645. A total of 94.2% of California residents live in urban areas, slightly above number two Nevada, at 94.1%.

This reflects a substantial change in the Census Bureau’s urban versus rural definition. From 1910 to 2010, urbanization was defined as settlements of 2,500 or more residents.From 1950 to 1990, larger areas of continuous urbanization were designated as “urbanized areas” based on density criteria. The “building blocks” of “urbanized areas” before 2000 were municipalities. Sometimes these municipalities included substantial undeveloped land (such as Los Angeles, which extended through the wilderness to the crest of the San Gabriel Mountains or New Orleans with its eastern wetlands extension). Further, settlements that did not qualify as “urbanized areas” could qualify under the minimum population criteria of 2,500.

In 2000, the Census Bureau started delineating continuously developed urban areas by computer, using the smallest census geography, the census block. This eliminated largely undeveloped areas like the Los Angeles and New Orleans cases referenced above. Overall, an urban area had to have a density of 2,500 or more. This rendered the urbanized areas of 2000 and 2010 incomparable with those before.

In 2020, a further revision required urban areas to meet either a 5,000 population or a 2,000 housing unit criteria as well as other changes. The actual urban areas are built up from census blocks using housing rather than population densities.

In 2020, the urban population of the United States was 265.2 million, 80.0% of the total. This is up from 249.3 million in 2010, when the urban population share was 80.7% of the population. The small decline in the urban percentage resulted principally from the revised density criteria.

The table below summarizes elements of urban density by state.

Highest Urban Density and Urbanization

The top 15 states in urban population density and percentage of urbanization are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

Nine of the 15 states with the highest urban densities are located in the west, including California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, Utah. Arizona, Washington and Idaho.

California, with the densest urbanization, has 70 of the 100 densest urban areas. California also has 35 of the 43 urban areas (81%) with population densities exceeding 5,000. California has the three densest urban areas with more than 500 ,000 population.

New York, with the second densest urbanization in the nation (4,645 per square mile), is largely driven by the part of the New York urban area in the state. New York state ranks ninth in the percentage of its population living in urban areas.

Hawaii has the third densest urbanization, largely due to the Honolulu urban area, which ranks fourth in density among the urban areas over 500,000 population (5,886).

Nevada has the fourth densest urbanization, at 3.715 per square mile, driven by Las Vegas, the sixth densest urban area, with 5,046 per square mile. The Las Vegas urban area has 71 percent of Nevada’s population.

Oregon has the fifth densest urbanization, at 3,209 per square mile. The Portland urban area most of which is located in Oregon has a density of 4,052, ranking 13th among the urban areas with more than 500,000 population.

New Jersey has the sixth densest urbanization (3,178), with largely suburban development in the New York and Philadelphia urban areas. New Jersey ranks third in its percentage of population in urban areas, at 93.8%.

Colorado has the seventh densest urbanization (3,119) where Denver, with about 4,200 per square mile ranking 11th out of those over 500,000.

Utah has an urban density of 3,119 per square mile, the ninth highest. Utah has the seventh highest percentage of its residents living in urban areas, at 89.8%.

Illinois has the tenth densest urbanization, at 3,007 per square mile. Illinois also has the 10th highest urbanization rate, at 86.9%.

Lowest Urban Density and Urbanization

The 15 states with the lowest urban population density and percentage of urbanization are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.

The states with the lowest urban population densities are in the Northeast and South. New Hampshire has the lowest density, at 1,274 per square mile. Much of the state is in the Boston-Worcester-Providence, MA-RI-NH-CT combined statistical area, including its largest city (Manchester). New Hampshire also has the ninth lowest urban population share, at 58.3 percent.

Maine, adjacent to New Hampshire has similar urban population characteristics, with the second lowest urban population density (1.303) and the second lowest urbanization, at 38.6 percent of the population.

Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina are ranked third through fifth in urban density. Mississippi has the fourth lowest urbanization rate.

Only one western state, Alaska, is among the states with the 5th lowest urban density. Two eastern states, Vermont and Connecticut also have among the lowest urban densities.

Seven of the 15 states with the lowest urban densities are in the south, including West Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Louisiana and Delaware. North Carolina and Georgia are particularly notable, as two of the fastest growing states, both of which have recently reached a population of 10 million.

Vermont is the least urbanized state, with only 35.1 percent of its population in urban areas. Maine is a close second, with only 38.6 percent of its population in urban areas.

Rankings by Urban Land Share of Total Land

The 15 states with the largest and smallest percentage of total land are illustrated in Figures 5 and 6.

The four states with the largest share of land that is urban are all located in the Northeast. New Jersey has the highest share of its land in urbanization, at 37.3%. Nearly all of New Jersey’s urbanization is in the suburbs of New York and Philadelphia. Massachusetts nearly equals the urbanized land share of New Jersey, at 37.1%. Rhode Island ranks a close third, with 36.7% of its land urbanized. Connecticut ranks fourth, at 34.6% of its land urbanized. Both Rhode Island and Connecticut have portions have extensions of urbanization from Massachusetts urban areas (Boston and Worcester). Each of these five states with the greatest percentage of urban land is among the smallest geographically in the nation.

Delaware, with two of its three counties in suburban Philadelphia has 22.0% of its land urbanized. Maryland, with its extensive suburbs of Washington, DC and the large Baltimore urban area ranks sixth, at 18.8%. Florida has an urban land share of 14.8%.

There are nine states with urbanized land shares less than one percent, including Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho,New Mexico, Nebraska and Nevada.

One of the reasons that the urban area criteria was changed was so that the Census Bureau could provide complete urban area estimates (population, land area and population density) between censuses, using its master file of addresses. At the same time, the Census Bureau indicated that, while it now has that ability, it has no plans to do so at this time (Note).

The dominance of the West among the states with the highest urban densities may be surprising, given their historically lower urban core densities than in the Northeast and Midwest. But while western cities have experienced some decline in their cores, the losses in the rest of the country have been greater. Today there are only four major metropolitan areas in the West that have large (100,000 or more) and These losses, but much more the suburban expansion of these metros explain much of the ascendance of the West in urban density.

Note 1: As a matter of interest, Canada, which used criteria very similar to that of the US Census Bureau for its own urban areas (called “population centres”) in the 2016 and 2021 censuses. On important difference was that rather than having a minimum population of 2,500, Canada’s population centres are required to have a minimum population of 1,000.

Note 2: Derived from Census Bureau data and unpublished data from the Demographia City Sector Model.

Photo: Las Vegas Urban Area, with 71% of Nevada’s population, it is the 5th densest major urban area in the United States as of 2020 (following San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, New York and Honolulu. Credit: Stan Shebs, downtown Las Vegas, Nevada via Wikimedia under CC 3.0 License.

Table 1 (back to reference)

Urbanization by State (& DC) 2020 Census
State	Total Population	Urban Population	Urban Share	Rank	Total Land Area	Urban Land Area	Share of Total Land	Rank	Urban Density	Rank
Alabama	5,024,279	2,900,880	57.7%	43	50,645	2,093	4.1%	23	1,386	47
Alaska	733,391	475,967	64.9%	36	570,641	324	0.1%	50	1,467	45
Arizona	7,151,502	6,385,230	89.3%	8	113,594	2,164	1.9%	33	2,951	10
Arkansas	3,011,524	1,670,677	55.5%	45	52,035	1,088	2.1%	31	1,536	43
California	39,538,223	37,259,490	94.2%	1	155,779	7,779	5.0%	20	4,790	1
Colorado	5,773,714	4,966,936	86.0%	13	103,642	1,577	1.5%	37	3,150	7
Connecticut	3,605,944	3,110,153	86.3%	11	4,842	1,673	34.6%	4	1,859	37
Delaware	989,948	817,817	82.6%	17	1,949	430	22.0%	5	1,903	36
Dist. of Columbia	689,545	689,545	100.0%		61	61	100.0%		11,281
Florida	21,538,187	19,714,806	91.5%	4	53,625	7,952	14.8%	7	2,479	18
Georgia	10,711,908	7,933,986	74.1%	23	57,513	4,662	8.1%	11	1,702	39
Hawaii	1,455,271	1,252,450	86.1%	12	6,423	302	4.7%	21	4,142	3
Idaho	1,839,106	1,273,437	69.2%	31	82,643	478	0.6%	45	2,662	14
Illinois	12,812,508	11,137,590	86.9%	10	55,519	3,704	6.7%	18	3,007	9
Indiana	6,785,528	4,829,686	71.2%	29	35,826	2,425	6.8%	16	1,991	32
Iowa	3,190,369	2,014,831	63.2%	38	55,857	977	1.7%	35	2,062	30
Kansas	2,937,880	2,124,059	72.3%	26	81,759	976	1.2%	39	2,176	24
Kentucky	4,505,836	2,644,856	58.7%	41	39,486	1,379	3.5%	25	1,918	35
Louisiana	4,657,757	3,332,237	71.5%	28	43,204	1,951	4.5%	22	1,708	38
Maine	1,362,359	526,309	38.6%	49	30,843	404	1.3%	38	1,303	49
Maryland	6,177,224	5,288,760	85.6%	14	9,707	1,828	18.8%	6	2,893	11
Massachusetts	7,029,917	6,416,895	91.3%	5	7,800	2,891	37.1%	2	2,219	22
Michigan	10,077,331	7,404,258	73.5%	24	56,539	3,514	6.2%	19	2,107	27
Minnesota	5,706,494	4,101,754	71.9%	27	79,627	1,647	2.1%	32	2,491	17
Mississippi	2,961,279	1,370,790	46.3%	47	46,923	1,017	2.2%	30	1,348	48
Missouri	6,154,913	4,275,663	69.5%	30	68,742	2,034	3.0%	28	2,102	28
Montana	1,084,225	579,177	53.4%	46	145,546	292	0.2%	48	1,982	34
Nebraska	1,961,504	1,432,003	73.0%	25	76,824	542	0.7%	43	2,640	15
Nevada	3,104,614	2,921,203	94.1%	2	109,781	786	0.7%	42	3,715	4
New Hampshire	1,377,529	803,420	58.3%	42	8,953	631	7.0%	14	1,274	50
New Jersey	9,288,994	8,708,779	93.8%	3	7,354	2,740	37.3%	1	3,178	6
New Mexico	2,117,522	1,578,552	74.5%	22	121,298	737	0.6%	44	2,143	25
New York	20,201,249	17,665,166	87.4%	9	47,126	3,803	8.1%	13	4,645	2
North Carolina	10,439,388	6,964,727	66.7%	34	48,618	4,523	9.3%	10	1,540	42
North Dakota	779,094	474,989	61.0%	40	69,001	215	0.3%	47	2,208	23
Ohio	11,799,448	9,001,099	76.3%	20	40,861	4,206	10.3%	8	2,140	26
Oklahoma	3,959,353	2,558,611	64.6%	37	68,595	1,288	1.9%	34	1,987	33
Oregon	4,237,256	3,410,984	80.5%	18	95,988	1,063	1.1%	41	3,209	5
Pennsylvania	13,002,700	9,941,070	76.5%	19	44,743	4,176	9.3%	9	2,380	20
Rhode Island	1,097,379	999,191	91.1%	6	1,034	380	36.7%	3	2,631	16
South Carolina	5,118,425	3,477,869	67.9%	32	30,061	2,426	8.1%	12	1,433	46
South Dakota	886,667	507,347	57.2%	44	75,811	246	0.3%	46	2,066	29
Tennessee	6,910,840	4,577,282	66.2%	35	41,235	2,888	7.0%	15	1,585	41
Texas	29,145,505	24,400,697	83.7%	15	261,232	9,052	3.5%	26	2,696	13
Utah	3,271,616	2,937,303	89.8%	7	82,170	942	1.1%	40	3,119	8
Vermont	643,077	225,850	35.1%	50	9,217	142	1.5%	36	1,595	40
Virginia	8,631,393	6,528,313	75.6%	21	39,490	2,642	6.7%	17	2,471	19
Washington	7,705,281	6,424,035	83.4%	16	66,456	2,334	3.5%	24	2,752	12
West Virginia	1,793,716	800,857	44.6%	48	24,038	540	2.2%	29	1,483	44
Wisconsin	5,893,718	3,953,691	67.1%	33	54,158	1,771	3.3%	27	2,232	21
Wyoming	576,851	357,750	62.0%	39	97,093	177	0.2%	49	2,024	31
United States	331,449,281	265,149,027	80.0%		3,531,907	103,872	2.9%		2,553
Source: US Census Bureau

California Dominates Urban Area Density Rankings

Wendell Cox — Mon, 16 Jan 2023 20:28:58 -0500

The newly released Census Bureau urban area reveals all 10 or the densest urban areas are in California, as well as 39 of the densest 50, and 70 of the 100. This is an unusually large concentration for a single state. An overall summary of the 2020 US urban areas was recently published in 2020 Urban Areas and Data Announced.

This article focuses on the 15 densest urban areas in the United States, according to the 2020 Census. New urban area criteria were adopted for 2020, which renders direct comparisons to previous data from the 1950 through 2010 censuses non-comparable.Chances are that they are unfamiliar to most, with the exception of San Francisco (San Francisco-Oakland)), Los Angeles (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim) and San Jose. These three urban areas are the only ones with more than 100,000 population among the top 15 densest areas.

The 15 Densest Urban Areas

Here’s a surprise, even for those of us closely involved in urban demography. Many of the densest urban areas in the country are located in primarily agricultural areas in California’s interior.

The Mecca, California is the densest urban area. Located just to the north of the Salton Sea, in Riverside County, it is nearly 40 miles east of Palm Springs and 140 miles east of Los Angeles, near the junction of California highways 86 and 111. Covering 0.6 square miles, Mecca has about 6,900 residents and a population density of 10,979 — more than 40% denser than either San Francisco or Los Angeles. Mecca is 70% denser than San Jose, 90% denser than the New York urban area and 170% denser than 89th ranked Portland (Oregon), despite its now nearly half-century of densification policy (urban containment policy). Mecca does not include an incorporated municipality.

The Greenfield, California urban area is second densest and is located in Monterey County, about 30 miles south of Salinas on US-101 and 150 miles south of San Francisco (more than one-third the way to Los Angeles). Greenfield has a population of 18,900 in 2.1 square miles, with a population density of 8,821 per square mile.

The Arvin, California urban area is third densest and located in Kern County, about 20 miles from Bakersfield and 100 miles from Los Angeles, to the west of the Interstate 5 corridor. Arvin has a population of 19,600 in 2.4 square miles, for a population density of 8,266.

The Parlier, California urban area is fourth densest and located in Fresno County, about 25 miles south of Fresno and 210 miles north of Los Angeles. It is located to the east of California highway 99, which is the principal route through the center of the San Joaquin Valley. The urban area has a population of 14,500 in 1.8 square miles, for a population density of 8,124 per square mile.

The Soledad, California urban area is fifth densest and located in Monterey County, between Salinas and second ranked Greenfield, about 20 miles south of Salinas and 140 miles south of San Francisco. With a population of 19,800 and a land area of 2.4 square miles, Soledad’s population density is 7,832 per square mile.

The 2020 San Francisco urban area is the 6th densest. It has a population of 3.3 million, covering a land area of 429 square miles (the 48th largest urban footprint in the nation). Its population per square mile is 7,626.

The 2020 Los Angeles urban area is the 8th densest, with 12.3 million residents in 1,637 square miles (the 8th largest urban footprint the nation), for a density of 7,476 per square mile.

Between the San Francisco and Los Angeles urban areas, the MacFarland urban area, Kern County, is the 7th densest. MacFarland is located on California highway 99, 25 miles north of Bakersfield and 135 miles north of Los Angeles. Its density is 7,599 per square mile.

The Calexico urban area is the ninth densest urban area and is located in Imperial County. Calexico has 38,000 residents in 5.4 square miles, with a density of 7,115. It is about 120 miles east of San Diego, and 85 miles south of the densest urban area, Mecca, south of the Salton Sea. Calexico is also directly across the border from Mexicali an urban area with a population of 958,000, and the capital of Mexico’s state of Baja California.

The 10th densest is the Guadeloupe urban area in Santa Barbara County, located about 10 miles from Santa Maria, with a population of 8,000, with a population density of 7,044.

The 11th and 12th densest urban areas are both in Arizona, located in Yuma County, in the southwestern corner of the state. The Somerton urban area has a population of 14,000 and a density of 6,836. The San Luis urban area is located virtually at the southwestern corner of the state, and has a population of 25,000 with a density of 6,710. Like Calexico, California (above), 50 miles to the west using Mexico federal highway 2, San Luis is directly across the border from a much larger urban area, San Luis Rio, Sonora (Mexico), which has about 200,000 residents.

The Wasco, California urban area is located in Kern County, between California highway 99 and Interstate 5. Wasco has 22,000 residents and a density of 6,449 per square mile. Wasco is 30 miles north of Bakersfield and 140 miles north of Los Angeles.

The San Jose urban area, almost exclusively suburban in urban form, is the 14th densest urban area in the nation. San Jose has a population of 1.8 million, in 285 square miles, with a population density of 6,436. San Jose is nearly 8% denser than the New York urban area (5,980 per square mile).

The Orosi urban area is the 15th densest and is in Tulare County. Like Mecca, this urban area does not include an incorporated general purpose government. Orosi’s 13,000 residents live in 2.0 square miles, at a density of 6,422.

Urban Density: From Los Angeles and New York to Mecca and Arvin

The urban area that most would expect to be at the top of the density ratings is New York (New York-Jersey City-Newark). And, indeed, New York City was the densest large municipality in the country. (28,000 per square mile). However, the population density in the balance of the urban area is far lower, at 3.200 per square mile. By comparison, the Los Angeles urban area had a suburban density about double that of New York, at 6,400. The San Francisco urban area suburbs has a density of 4,900 and the San Jose urban area suburbs are at 4,700. The large comparatively more dense suburban expanses of these three urban areas explains their higher overall densities compared to the New York urban area.

Density, it turns out, does not simply occur in places like New York or Los Angeles. In many cases, it shows up in the smallest urban areas.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photo: Bakersfield, California, seat of Kern County, home of three of the densest urban areas in the United States in 2020 (by author).

The Rural Character of Canada's Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)

Wendell Cox — Mon, 19 Dec 2022 20:28:58 -0500

There is considerable confusion with respect to the terms of urban geography, not only among the population in general, but also among the media, and sadly, among academics. Perhaps the greatest confusion is between the terms “metropolitan area” and “urban area.”

Metropolitan areas (census metropolitan areas in Canada, or CMAs) are labor markets, which are defined by commuting patterns. They include both urban and rural areas. They are not to be confused with built-up urban areas (called “population centres” in Canada), that contain only urban land. In Canada, population centres have a minimum population of 1,000.

All land within Canada (according to Statistics Canada), the United States (according to the US Census Bureau) or the World (according to the United Nations) is either urban or rural. But it may be surprising to that most land in metropolitan areas is rural.

After the 2010 US Census, we published an article examining the rural extent of metropolitan areas“ (Rural Character in America’s Metropolitan Areas), finding that about 90% of their land was rural (non-urban). Nearly the same is true of Canadian census metropolitan areas (CMAs). According to the 2021 census, 87.0% of the land in the 42 CMAs is rural. Only 13.0% of the land isurban (in population centres). Among the major CMAs (over one million population) the average the rural land area average is 76.8%, with 23.2% in urban land. Among the major CMA’s Montreal has the least rural land, at 62.4%.

Comparing Trends: Urban Land and Agricultural Land

The extent of urban land has been increasing for decades, as urban population has increased. This has led to concerns that expanding urbanization is reducing the amount of agricultural land. But, in fact, land has been taken out of agricultural production at a far faster rate than can be explained by the increase in urban land.

Between the 2016 and 2021 censuses, Canada’s urbanization, measured by population centres, increased by less than 1,200 square kilometers. Total agricultural land was reduced by more than 20,000 square kilometers. The reduction in agricultural land was more than 17 times the addition of urban land. The reality is that agricultural land has been withdrawn from Canada for decades, according to Statistics Canada data, just as it has been in the United States, Australia and other nations because much land has become less productive even as productivity has continued to improve.

Even more starkly, the land area of the urbanization that has developed in Canada since the dawn the first European settlement is less than the reduction in agricultural land in just five years. Overall, population centres covered nearly 18,000 square kilometers in 2021. By comparison, the reduction in agricultural land was 20,000 square kilometers between 2016 and 2021.

All of Canada’s urban land in 2021 is equal to about three percent of the total agricultural land, according to Statistics Canada data (Figure 2).

CMAs by Extent of Rural Land

Figure 1 indicates the number of CMAs by the share of urban land within their borders and the Table provides data for all CMAs.

CMAs with 90%-100% Rural Land

More than one-half — 24 of the CMAs consist of more than 90% rural land. Kamloops (BC) has the largest expanse of rural land, at 98.6% of the CMA total. Fredericton, New Brunswick’s capital is close behind, at 98.4%. Four more CMAs are at least 97% rural, including Chatham-Kent, Ontario (97.7%), Lethbridge, Alberta (97.5%), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (97.4%), Regina, capital of Saskatchewan (97.2%) and Thunder Bay, Ontario (97.0%).

Two CMAs with more than one million residents are at least 90% rural. These are Edmonton (1.4 million), capital of Alberta, at 91.4% and Ottawa-Gatineau (1.5 million), location of national capital, at 91.0%. Winnipeg, capital of Manitoba (835,000) is 92.8% rural. Halifax, capital of Nova Scotia (470,000) is 96.3% rural.

CMAs with 80%-89% Rural Land

Ten CMAs have between 80% and 90% of their land in rural areas. The largest of these CMAs are Calgary, with 1.5 million residents is 86.3% rural. The Quebec City CMA (840,000) is 86.2% rural. St. Catharines-Niagara (435,000) is 80.9% rural. Windsor (420,000), across the Detroit River from Detroit, is 86.7% rural.

CMAs with 70%-79% Rural Land

Two CMAs are between 70% and 79% rural. Both are adjacent to Toronto. Hamilton, with a population of 785,000, is 73.4% rural, while Oshawa, with a population of 415,000 is 78.7% rural.

CMAs with 60%-69% Rural Land

Five CMAs have from 60% to 69% of their land in rural areas. These include the three largest CMAs. Toronto, with a population of 6.2 million, and the largest CMA in Canada, is 64.3% rural. The second largest CMA, Montreal, with a population of 4.3 million, is 62.4% rural. The third largest CMA, Vancouver has a population of 2.6 million is 65.3% rural. The Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo has a population is 69.7% rural. The other CMA with between 60% and 69% rural land is Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, and has a population of nearly 400,000.

CMAs with Under 60% Rural Land

Only one CMA has less than 60% of its land in rural areas — Red Deer, Alberta, which is only 37% rural. Red Deer is the smallest CMA of the 42, with a population of 100,000, barely meeting the CMA minimum population criteria.

Remote Work to Increase CMA Rural Areas

There may be the prospect of CMAs becoming even more rural. During the pandemic, remote work replaced working on site in Canada and other nations. The latest data indicates that more than 20% of workers were spending the majority of their work time at home. This is about three times the work at home share from the 2016 census.

Remote work makes it possible for households to conveniently live farther from employment locations, with larger houses, home offices and yards. Strong decentralizing trends were observed by Statistics Canada between 2016 and 2021, when three-quarters of CMA population growth was in the suburbs. In the largest CMA, Toronto, nearly three-quarters of growth was in the distant suburbs. Richard Florida of the University of Toronto and famous for his identification of the “creative class” recently told The New York Times that “now here’s a whole generation leaving cities again, for metropolitan or virtual suburbs,” Decentralization, long the dominant trend seems likely to intensify. The rural character of CMAs and could even become more pronounced.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photo: Saskatchewan River, downtown Edmonton. The Edmonton CMA has largest rural and component of any major CMA in Canada, at 91.4%, according to the 2021 Census (by author).

How New York Can Survive

Joel Kotkin — Wed, 14 Dec 2022 20:28:58 -0500

In 1912, James Weldon Johnson wrote that New York City is “the most fatally fascinating place in America”. The city, he explained, “sits like a great witch at the gate of the country, showing her alluring white face and hiding her crooked hands and feet under the folds of her wide garments — constantly enticing thousands from far within, and tempting those who come from across the seas to go no farther.” But that was over a century ago. Today, New York appears to be less a “great witch” than an embattled crone, with many residents fleeing to lesser cities and towns.

When the great platform of urban supremacism, The New York Times, starts publishing articles about the “urban doom loop” facing American cities, it is clear the game is up. Yes, there has been much hand-wringing by the experts and brave words about the inevitable resurgence of cities, but the trends against dense urbanity are too powerful for even the most deluded to deny.

Only by embracing change can the city hope to recover something of its past glory. In the coming decades, New York, the country’s largest city since 1790, appears destined to decline, turning into what Terry Nichols Clark has described as the “city as entertainment machine”. This new role follows H.G. Wells’s vision of cities as largely childless “places of concourse and rendezvous”, ideal for the wealthy, necessary for their servants and a beacon to the young and the culturally aware.

The tired refrain that cities always recover ignores the spectre of long-term, permanent decline. History is replete with cities fading into obscurity and even non-existence, from ancient Carthage to Ctesiphon, capital of ancient Persia, Vijayanagar in India or Great Zimbabwe in Africa. Across the West, major industrial cities have been shrinking, from Liverpool and Manchester to Osaka and Adelaide, with little prospect of rapid recovery. For over a century, growth has shifted to the suburbs and exurbs — not only in the United States, but in the old cities of Europe too, including London and Paris.

These trends accelerated during the pandemic. Even as the virus has receded, the return to the office has been slower than some predicted. And of all the nation’s major cities, New York has suffered the slowest post-pandemic job recovery, with midtown offices still half-empty.

Yet this drift was taking shape even before the pandemic. Across the US, office occupancy has been declining since 2000, while construction of new space has fallen consistently for 25 years. In 2019, before the pandemic, construction was one-third the rate of 1985 and half that of 2000. Now faced with a recession or at least a slowdown, office absorption is likely to remain at historically low rates, with the potential loss of value in central-business-district offices reaching $500 billion in New York alone.

But even as New York’s office economy struggles, there are distinct signs of life, driven not by necessity but by people and industry. New York, for all its plight, remains dominant in those fields — media, culture, and tourism — where urban areas remain competitive with the hinterland. It also includes medical facilities, which need highly skilled workers and where agglomeration effects allow the city to export medical services. Less positive is its decision to bet its future on casino gambling and pot stores, not exactly a substitute for higher end activities. Yet overall, in this new urban order, New York is easily the best placed of America’s cities to thrive. It still attracts the global rich, boasts some of the world’s best museums and restaurants, as well as large arts communities.

Read the rest of this piece at UnHerd.

Joel Kotkin is the author of The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class. He is the Roger Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and Executive Director for Urban Reform Institute. Learn more at joelkotkin.com and follow him on Twitter @joelkotkin.

Photo: Street art by Nick Walker via Wikimedia under CC 4.0 License.

Densification in Toronto: The Evolving Urban Form

Wendell Cox — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 20:28:58 -0400

Like many of the world’s largest cities (Note 1), public policy seeks to densify Toronto, which is already the densest urban area (the international term) or population centre (the Canadian term) in North America (as used here, north of Mexico). An urban area is continuously built up urbanization and is routinely at the core of a metropolitan area (in Canada, a Census Metropolitan Area, or CMA). In Toronto, the population centre occupies 31% of the CMA land area, while the rest of the CMA --- 69% of the land, principally rural, is outside the population centre.

Densification from 2016 to 2021

Toronto is densifying, but perhaps not as much as the public may have been led to believe. At the previous census (2016), the Toronto population center had a density of 3,028 per square kilometer (7,843 per square mile). This is 12% above Los Angeles, the second densest urban area in Northern America (2010). Perhaps more surprisingly the Toronto populaation center is 48% denser than New York. New York may be everyone’s favorite density champion, but it is the least dense megacity in the world.

By 2021, the Toronto population center had risen to a density of 3,088 per square kilometer (7,997 per square mile), an increase of 2.0%.

Overall, the Toronto CMA added 274,000 residents, a gain of 4.6% from the 2016 population. The Toronto population center added 218,000 residents, an increase of 4.0%.

Where the Densification Occurred

The table below summarizes the change in population in the Toronto CMA by sector.

Urban Core Densification: The largest percentage gain occured in the centre of Toronto, in three federal electoral districts, which are defined for this article as the urban core (Note 2). The urban core added 46,000 residents, an increase of 14.0%. This is more than three times the CMA population increase rate.

The largest increase was in the Spadina-Fort York electoral district, with an increase of 17.9%. nearly four times the CMA increase. Spadina-Fort York includes the municipality of Toronto City Hall and has a population density of 6,485/16,800.

Toronto-Centre had an increase of 15.5% and has by far the highest population density among the federal electoral districts in the CMA. At 20,531/53,175, Toronto Centre is about as dense as the ville de Paris, but about a quarter less dense than New York’s Manhattan. But, Toronto-Centre covers a much smaller land area, at 5.88 square kilometers. Manhattan is about 10 times as large (59 square kilometers) and Parisis about 18 times as large (105 square kilometers).

The third urban core federal electoral district, Toronto-St. Paul’s, gained 8.4% from 2016 to 2021.

However, the federal electoral districts that border on the urban core (defined herein as the “inner ring”) gained only modestly or even lost population over the past five years. These six districts had a net loss of 1,800 residents and a decline of 0.3%.

Municipality of Toronto: Outside the Urban Core

Outside the urban core and inner ring, the municipality of Toronto gained 19,000 residents, or 1.1%. This is less than a quarter of the CMA increase rate.

Population Center Outside the Municipality of Toronto (the Suburbs)

The third largest percentage gain was in the suburbs — the area between the Toronto municipality limits and the outer edge of the population centre. The suburbs 155,000 added residents, a 5.8% increase from 2016. The suburbs had an urban density of 2,380 per square kilometer or 6,164 per square mile.

This area includes Mississauga, the largest suburb in Canada, with a population of 718,000. Mississauga has experienced substantial high density development over the past decade (Photo above), yet its population increased only 0.6% since 2011, including a 0.5% loss between 2016 and 2021.

Metropolitan Area Outside the Population Centre (the Exurbs)

Yet the big growth, as around US metropolitan areas, has been in the suburbs and exurbs. The second largst percentage increase in population occurred between the population center and the CMA boundary. Here there was an increase of 56,000 residents, an increase of 12.0% over the five years. The population density of this principally rural sector was 136 per square kilometer (353 per square mile). Some of the land is urban, such as the Milton and Orangeville population centres.

Distribution of Population Growth

The suburbs and exurbs accounted for 77.1% of the CMA population growth between 2016 and 2021. The municipality of Toronto accounted for 22.9% of the CMA growth (Figure 1).

While the exurbs had the smallest share of the growth, they attracted one-fifth more than in the densifying urban core (56,000 versus 49,000).

In the 2021 census, the municipality of Toronto fell to less than one-half (49.5%) the population of the population centre and now has 45.1% of the CMA population.

Moreover, despite Toronto’s strong percentage growth in the urban core, it was small compared to the growth of the Toronto population centre and the Toronto CMA. Overall, only 17% of the CMA population growth was in the urban core.

A Tough Environment for Densification

One of the principal purposes of densification is to reduce auto use by enticing drivers to commute by transit instead. Yet there has been little progress on this front, as auto use and traffic congestion have increased.

This is because, for most trips, whether in Toronto, New York or Paris, autos provide greater mobility. International research indicates that the average Toronto CMA resident can reach 4.5 times as many jobs by car as by transit in 30 minutes (calculated from source). Thirty minutes is used as a standard for one-way commuting in a number of metropolitan areas.

Toronto, and all major metropolitan areas in North America, are widely dispersed. Transit can effectively serve concentrated employment, principally downtown (the central business district or the CBD). Toronto’s downtown employment density is estimated at 30,300 per square kilometer, more than 25 times that of the rest of population centres (Figure 2). Only 19% of employment in the Toronto population centre was downtown in 2016, (estimated from Statistics Canada data). The other 81% of jobs was outside downtown and far more accessible by cars (Figure 3).

Downtown’s transit concentration is illustrated byToronto’s extensive suburban rail system. Metrolinxis the second largest in North America, trailing much larger New York. Nearly all trips begin or end (96%) at downtown’s Union Station.

A New World?

The pandemic has resulted in fundamental changes in urban areas.

Remote and hybrid work have reduced auto use far more than could have been realistically expected by attracting drivers to transit. As of May 2022, the Labor Force Survey indicated that remote and hybrid work remained above 25%, more than double the pre-pandemic share of transit commuting, as reported in the 2016 census.

Meanwhile, transit ridership has been decimated. In 2021, Metrolinx carried at least 80% fewer riders than in 2019, ridership, while the Toronto Transit Commission, the subway operator, had seen its ridership drop more than 60%.Moreover, Toronto’s substantial net outmigration to more affordable markets around Ontario has been associated with its rapidly deteriorating housing affordability.

This new world makes densification even more challenging.

Note 1: This article refers to the generic forms of the city, the metropolitan area and the “population center,” which is the Statistics Canada term for “urban area”).

Note 2: Canada’s federal electoral districts provide an effective means for obtaining data that is masked in the largest municipalities (such as the municipality of Toronto). Each federal electoral district elects one of the 338 members to Canada’s House of Commons. With a national population of 37.0 million in 2021, the average federal electoral district had approximately 109,000 residents.

Also See:

Suburbanizing Canada: The 2021 Census

Comparing Urban Densities: Winnipeg and New York

Toronto Solidifies Highest Density Ranking in North America

Canada, US Cities with Largest CBDs Lost Population

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photograph: Absolute World condominiums (56 and 50 floors), in Mississauga, Canada’s largest suburb by Sarbjit Bahga via Wikimedia, CC 4.0 License.

Korea: Moving to the Suburbs of Seoul

Wendell Cox — Sun, 03 Jul 2022 20:29:58 -0400

The Seoul metropolitan area (also called the Seoul Capital Area) has continued its strong population growth over the past decade, with the 2020 census indicating an annual increase of 1.0%. This nearly equals the world population growth rate of 1.2% as reported by the World Bank and is well above the US rate over the same period of 0.7%. Metro Seoul’s population growth rate is astounding when compared to Korea’s lowest in the world total fertility rate of 0.83 according to the World Bank.

The Seoul-Incheon built-up (contiguous) urban area had a population of 23.0 million in 2022, ranking the ninth largest in the world (see Demographia World Urban Areas). The urban population density is estimated at 21,500 per square mile or 8,300 per square kilometer. This is more than three times as dense as Los Angeles — the densest US urban area — and nearly five times as dense as the New York urban area. Seoul-Incheon is the densest high income world megacity and ranks 236th among the 990 urban areas with at least 500,000 population.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicates that Seoul ranked as the sixth largest metropolitan area (which includes the urban area and external commuting shed) in the world in 2015, trailing Tokyo, Delhi, Jakarta, Shanghai, and Manila.

The Seoul metropolitan area includes three provincial level jurisdictions, the city of Seoul, the province of Gyeonggi, and the city of Incheon.

Suburbs: Dominating Seoul Metro

The city of Seoul is the historic core of the Seoul metropolitan area. The city covers 234 square miles (605 square kilometers). This is virtually the same land area as the city of Chicago. However, Seoul’s population is much higher, with 9.6 million residents, according to the 2020 census, compared to Chicago’s 2.7 million. Both core cities have lost about one million residents. Seoul’s population has dropped 1.1 million since its 1990 peak, while Chicago has lost 900,000 since its 1950 peak.

Despite the city of Seoul’s large population loss, it remains a very dense core municipality, at 41,000 per square mile (15,800 per square kilometer), above that of New York City (29,300/11,300) but still below the ville de Paris (53,200/20,500), which has only 20% of the Paris urban area population.

The city of Seoul peaked at a population of 10.6 million in 1990, having more than quadrupled from its 1960 count.

But since 1990, all metropolitan population growth was outside the city of Seoul (Figure 1). The city of Seoul accounted for up to 62% of the metropolitan population in 1970, but that dropped to 37% by 2020.

Seoul Suburbs: Dominating Metro Seoul and Korea Population Growth

The suburban province of Gyeonggi dominated population growth over that period, more than doubling from 6.1 million in 1990 to 13.5 million in 2020. Gyeonggi is now the largest provincial jurisdiction in the metropolitan area and has more than one-half the population.In the other suburban jurisdiction, the city of Incheon added as much population as the city Seoul lost, rising 1.1 million, from 1.8 million in 1990 to 2.9 million in 2020 (Figure 2). Incheon had been a part of Gyeonggi until the 1980s, and is the home to highly rated (and offshore) Incheon International Airport, the largest in Korea. The population trends in the three metropolitan area jurisdictions are illustrated in Figure 3.

The rest of the nation grew little. Korea’s total population growth in the last 10 years was 2,489,000 while the Seoul metropolitan area grew 2,427,000. Korea outside the Seoul metro gained only 67,000 residents. Metro Seoul attracted 97.5% of the population growth, the rest of Korea only 2.5%.

But in reality it was the suburbs of Seoul, which experienced not only all of the Seoul metro growth over the last 30 years, but also all of the nation’s growth as well. Between 1990 and 2020, the suburbs gained 8.5 million new residents, while the rest of the nation (the city of Seoul and all areas outside the Seoul metropolitan area) lost 825,000 residents (Figure 4).

Highly urbanized and concentrated countries like Korea tend to also have low birthrates. For example, total fertility rates in suburban Seoul are lower the rest of the nation, except for the city of Seoul. A well below replacement total fertility rate dominates all of South Korea’s provinces (Figure 5). Moreover, far slower growing provinces outside metro Seoul have generally higher total fertility rates. The City of Seoul has a total fertility rate of 0.64. ranking 17thand last among provincial equivalents in the nation. The suburban rates are also low, with Gyeonggi 11th at 0.88 and Incheon 12th at 0.83 (Figure 5).

The Key to Seoul Suburban Growth: Internal Migration Gains

The key to suburban Seoul’s growth has been almost entirely net internal migration gains. For example, between 2010 and 2021, the suburbs of Seoul gained 1.3 million net domestic migrants, while the city of Seoul and the rest of Korea lost 1.3 million. Thus all of the net internal migration was to suburban Seoul (Figure 6).

Korea: Moving to the Seoul Suburbs

Metro Seoul has a population greater than the rest of the nation (51%). This is level of concentration (Figure 7) more than that of any nation with more than 20 million residents (all of these nations have a population at least as great as metro New York). Concern about this centralization and the crowding of Seoul has led to designation of a new administrative capital in Sejong, which is more centrally located. The transition began in 2012, though it is unclear whether all of the government will ever move. The construction and movement of functions to Sejong has already spurred local economic development.

However, as with Brasilia, this seems to me unlikely to reduce the crowding in Seoul any more than has occurred in Rio de Janeiro, which since it lost the capital has become a megacity and added more than twice the population that lives in Brasilia. The Seoul suburbs seem likely to continue their growth even after the national population begins to decline, which according to Statistics Korea, is imminent.

However, eventually all of Korea is likely to fall into decline, including the Seoul suburbs. Reversing this national trend would require an unprecedented recovery in birth rates or a surge of immigration, which would also be unprecedented.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.

Photo: Anyang, Gyeonggi (suburban Seoul) by Hyungyong Kim via
Wikimedia; use here under CC 2.0 License.

Demographia U.S. Housing Affordability – 2022 Edition Released

Wendell Cox — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 20:28:58 -0400

Demographia United States Housing Affordability rates middle-income housing affordability, using the median multiple, a measurement of income in relation to housing prices, or 189 major markets (metropolitan areas) for the third quarter of 2021.

Assessing Housing Affordability: Sometimes housing affordability is evaluated by simply comparing house prices. However, without consideration of incomes, housing affordability cannot be assessed with any real meaning for potential buyers. The very term “housing affordability” implies a relationship between housing costs and the ability to pay (or incomes).

Demographia United States Housing Affordability uses the “median multiple” to rate middle-income housing affordability (Table ES-1). The median multiple is a price-to-income ratio, which is the median house price divided by the gross median household income (pre-tax).

Middle-income housing affordability is rated in four categories (Table ES-1)

Housing markets are metropolitan areas, which are also labor markets. In a well-functioning market, the median priced house should be affordable to a large portion of middle-income households, as was overwhelmingly the case a few decades ago.

Housing affordability comparisons can be made, (1) between housing markets (such as comparison between Cincinnati and Pittsburgh) or (2) over time within the same housing market (such between years in Cincinnati).

International Housing Affordability in 2021: Housing affordability in 2021 is considerably worse than before, with a five times increase in markets with at median multiples of at 10.0 or more as just a decade ago.

The least affordable market is Hong Kong, with a median multiple of 23.2, followed by Sydney at 15.3, Vancouver at 13.3, San Jose at 12.6 and Melbourne at 12.1. The most affordable market is Pittsburgh, at 2.7, followed by Oklahoma City and Rochester at 3.3, with Edmonton and St. Louis at 3.6.

Housing affordability for all 92 markets is shown by median multiple in Table 4 and by nation in Table 5 (following Section 5 in the report).

The Pandemic Demand Shock: The pandemic has driven an unprecedented deterioration in housing affordability. Many households have sought more living space (inside and outside) during the pandemic. This has resulted in a “demand shock” The demand for housing rose faster than could be readily supplied by developers and builders.

The number of severely unaffordable markets — that is defined by median multiples over 5.0 — in the United States rose 440% from 14 in 2019 (the last pre-pandemic year), to 76 in 2021.

U.S. Housing Affordability in 2021: US housing affordability in 2021 is summarized by market in Table ES-2.

The number of markets rated “affordable” dropped to 9 in 2021, down 80 % from 44 last year. The most affordable markets were Peoria, IL (2.3), Davenport, IA (2.5), Rockford, IL and Pittsburgh, PA (2.7) — the only “affordable” major markets, as well as Cedar Rapids, IA, McAllen, TX and Youngstown, OH-PA (2.9). Erie, PA and Utica-Roma had median multiples of 3.0.

The 76 severely unaffordable markets in 2021 represented a nearly 125% increase from the 34 in 2020 and up more than 440% from 14 in pre-pandemic 2019.

Housing Affordability and Land Use Regulation: There is a broad view that declining housing affordability is driving higher costs of living that threaten the future of the middle-class.

In Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle-Class, the OECD finds that the middle-class faces ever increasing costs of living and that rising owned house prices are the “main driver of rising middle-class expenditure.”

In the United States more than 85% of cost of living differences between high cost and average cost metropolitan areas are due to housing costs.

Academic research associates the declining housing affordability over recent decades with stronger land use regulation. In particular, urban containment regulation can produce substantially higher costs. In Rethinking Urban Sprawl: Moving Toward Sustainable Cities, OECD concludes that urban containment strategies (such as urban growth boundaries and greenbelts) must be accompanied by sufficient land for urban expansion to maintain housing affordability. This land needs to be competitively priced to keep house prices from rising disproportionately to incomes. In housing markets with the least affordable housing, urban containment policy is typical.

Housing Affordability and Inequality: French economist Thomas Piketty’s analysis has documented growing wealth inequality to the detriment of middle-income and lower income households. Other economists have found that much of this rising inequality is the result of inordinately increasing house values that have substantially retarded housing affordability. Reducing inequality requires material improvement in housing affordability . Policies should be adopted that restore the competitive market for land on the urban fringe and retain the competitive market where it remains robust.

Elaboration and sources are in the full report. Click here to read and download the full report.

Wendell Cox is principal of Demographia, an international public policy firm located in the St. Louis metropolitan area. He is a founding senior fellow at the Urban Reform Institute, Houston, a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg and a member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman University in Orange, California. He has served as a visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris. His principal interests are economics, poverty alleviation, demographics, urban policy and transport. He is co-author of the annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey and author of Demographia World Urban Areas.

Mayor Tom Bradley appointed him to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (1977-1985) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed him to the Amtrak Reform Council, to complete the unexpired term of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (1999-2002). He is author of War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life and Toward More Prosperous Cities: A Framing Essay on Urban Areas, Transport, Planning and the Dimensions of Sustainability.