The real barrier?

While the “American dream” is often loosely defined as one’s own tidy single-family home on a sizable piece of property behind the proverbial white-picket fence, in fact this dream is a moving target, influenced not only by the marketing machines of corporate homebuilders, federal tax policy, and even cable television, but also by still lingering suburbanite fears of “urban living.”

While growing up in my family of five in eastern Bellevue in the 1960’s I lived in what was then deemed a model of middle-class housing. Yet that same 1600-square-foot, three-bedroom, 2-bathroom house on a large lot is today considered substandard by most even two- or three-person families seeking new housing.

With new homebuilders and the massive media storm that has grown around them bombarding American society with imagery and messaging meant to convince us all that we should live in 3,000-plus-square-foot “faux chateaux” in the distant-most exurbs, the tidy, comfortable, and, yes, more modest suburban homes of yesteryear pale in comparison.

As a result, when today’s small family laments that they cannot “afford” a house unless they move out to the exurban fringe on yesterday’s farms and forestland it’s often because they cannot afford the current media-driven image of what they should afford. In fact, 15- to 30-year-old suburban homes in first- and even second-ring suburbs are far more affordable than houses in the brand-new subdivisions but are often overlooked.

I wish I could say that this desire to live as far away as possible from the region’s urban centers is solely due to the pursuit of as large a home as possible. Yet I fear there are other factors in play also. Is there a degree of continuing segregation occurring? Do middle-class families harbor fears about living in the older cities and suburbs? Could these fears include class-based or even ethnicity-based discomfort? Again, do these issues also influence “affordability?” When the middle-class family of four on the Sammamish plateau complain about how expensive it is to live there, do we respond with a collective acquiescence and shaking of heads, or do we counter that hundreds of other beautiful neighborhoods in Lake Hills, Shoreline, Des Moines or Renton would be reasonable alternatives?

Now I don’t want to ignore the issue of affordability in the tightest housing markets, such as Seattle and Bellevue-Redmond. With a finite amount of near-by single-family housing, these locales do in fact present the most expensive options for home buying. And, obviously, many households are therefore excluded from pursuing the “American dream” in those locations. Their choice, then, is between either some sort of multifamily housing (ownership or rental) or more distant housing options, requiring possible long commutes.

Here is where that pesky “American dream” gets in the way again. Canada is our closest neighbor – physically, politically and even ethnically – yet the popular acceptance of multifamily housing opportunities, ranging from townhouses to highrise condos, is many-fold greater in that society than here in the US. There is a virtual stigma in this country associated with anything “less” than single-family home ownership. The dream simply has not been achieved if you’re not in a single-family home!

With these many forces compelling the average household to pursue not only a single-family home, but as large and as distantly located a one as possible, it’s no wonder that the word “affordability” is on everyone’s lips – from swank cocktail parties to soup kitchen lines in the central city.

There is little debate about whether to offer subsidies to some level of affordable housing for the most struggling members of our society, yet where the wicket gets stickier is when the “affordable housing” question is taken up by every member of society! Are we collectively duty bound to ensure that the distant-most “faux chateaux” also be “affordable?” Should we continue to capacitate suburban sprawl at all cost because affordably achieving the “American dream” continues to mean a single-family house on its own private lot in increasingly distant, increasingly homogeneous exurbia?

These are important questions for serious consideration and debate. Is it perhaps time for denser, in-fill, in-city housing options to start to take a greater place within the collective notion of our “American dream?”

If your expenses are mostly housing and food, paying 30% for housing seems downright quaint, however admirable and however great for retirement savings.

If a single metric is useful, how about 50% for housing plus transportation? It’s not perfect, but it’s much closer to the truth for pretty much everyone.

Local governments can do great things to encourage affordability. Some are happening now, and some aren’t.

First, take this...

Housing construction is expensive, and some of it is our own fault. Buildable sites are expensive because not enough land is zoned higher than what’s already there. Seattle’s famous “process” adds significant cost and risk for every project. We’re tacking on massive new fees onto projects above the older zoned heights. We’re disincentivizing new construction even though new supply is our greatest weapon to avoid SF/NY prices.

More on that: I don’t mean the new supply is affordable, because construction is expensive. But new supply means less demand for the old supply. That allows the old supply to gradually become cheaper over the years. That’s why the middle-class housing of 1920 or 1970 is generally more affordable today. (And the opposite is why similar housing in San Francisco or Manhattan is still outrageously expensive.)

Major kudos to the City for reducing parking requirements. This is already paying off as developers are developing parking in line with demand, rather than the average nimby’s idea of demand. The savings are dramatic for every space not built, and some projects that didn’t pencil with 25 spaces now pencil with 20 (with garage geometries, even one added space will sometimes trigger new costs in the hundreds of thousands).

In the third-rail department, our own expectations are part of the problem. In the US we tend to think 2,000 square feet is necessary for a family, and 800 square feet is barely livable for an individual. Basically we think we’re entitled to what much of the world would consider out-of-reach luxury. Why can’t a couple with two kids live in a two-bedroom apartment on a quiet street a few blocks from a park, at least until their careers advance a little?

But we want to know what these words actually mean, and how the city can acheive them.

In today’s DJC, SeattleScape blogger Roger Valdez introduces the topic of affordability.

On next week’s editorial page, we will run brief comments provided by members of the community, including elected officials, organizers and A/E/C industry players. (We asked them all to answer the question: “What is affordability and what can Seattle do to achieve it?” in under 50 words.)

Bloggers at SeattleScape will also take on the debate over the next few weeks. We hope you will join the conversation by commenting on the blog or emailing your comments to me at shawnag@djc.com.