Personal tools
log in | join | help

Where Are My Discounted Urban Mortgages?

by LiveModern Webmaster last modified Jan 04, 2012 02:32 AM
Editorial Rating: 1 2 3 4 5
Average Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 ( 0 votes)
by Nic Darling last modified Dec 16, 2010

I believe that mortgages should be biased toward homes in urban areas. This is not simply because such a bias would offer a positive response to global warming or the growing crises sparked by our energy gluttony (though its effect in those areas couldn’t hurt). Nor is it driven solely by my own love for [...]



I believe that mortgages should be biased toward homes in urban areas. This is not simply because such a bias would offer a positive response to global warming or the growing crises sparked by our energy gluttony (though its effect in those areas couldn’t hurt). Nor is it driven solely by my own love for the vitality and creative energy present in cities. Rather, it is, I believe, a simple economic choice. It seems (from my admittedly limited understanding) that urban mortgages are simply a much better bet for banks.

Suburban bias in mortgages has long been a driver of sprawling development. The FHA in particular has been somewhat notorious over the years for its discouragement of multi-family construction or mortgages for rehabilitation of older buildings (particular urban needs). Less well known, but equally anti-urban, are it’s past directives to underwriters to note the property’s “protection from adverse influences”, “freedom from special hazards” and “appeal” when considering a mortgage. These were liberally interpreted to deny mortgages in urban areas where density itself was seen to “lessen desirability”. I do not doubt that there are several highly defensible factors at play in this situation. The baby boom certainly put a strain on the housing in many cities and made a move to suburban building a quick, attractive fix. There is also a very real argument that the conditions in an industrial city without modern sanitation techniques could have been a very real motivation to those developing an understanding of “appeal”. However, there is equally little doubt that racism, classism and numerous other unsavory “isms” played their own role in favoring suburban development.

Regardless of the history (interesting as it is), we are at a point now where that bias should be shifted. For the first time we have urban populations that exceed those of non-urban. People are moving back to our cleaner, safer cities and some of those people actually still want to own a house. I believe those people should have an easier time getting a mortgage and that their mortgage should be more favorable than the suburban equivalent. Here’s a few reasons why . . .

Reduced Car Ownership

City dwellers own fewer cars than those who live in the suburbs. This is a significant economic advantage. According to the Brookings Institute, “Households in drivable suburban neighborhoods devote on average 24 percent of their income to transportation; those in walkable neighborhoods spend about 12 percent.”  The same article goes on to say that “dropping one car out of the typical household budget can allow that family to afford a $100,000 larger mortgage.” And this is not even considering the heavy subsidy that car owners receive in terms of road maintenance, oil subsidies and free parking. Imagine if, one day in the future, individuals were expected to pay a higher percentage of the cost of owning and operating a car. That seems like a risk that needs considering.

No sidewalks will get you here.

Fewer Average Square Feet

While this feature of urban homes might be a bit painful during an appraisal, the smaller size is a significant advantage when considering the long-term cost of ownership. Smaller homes tend to have smaller expenses in terms of maintenance, energy use and furnishing. These lower costs translate to more cash with which to pay the mortgage.

So many roofs. So many potential leaks.

Lower Landscaping Costs

This may seem like a small item, but by turning yards and outdoor space into largely shared amenities (parks, rec centers, etc.), city dwellers save a significant amount of money over the average suburban dweller. Lawn mowing, pest control, tree maintenance and so on are significant expenses and risks. Eliminating, or at least greatly reducing those costs, can make personal cash flow higher and more predictable.

Tree attacks are less common in the city.

Housing Value Stability

This one is a bit tougher because it assumes an agreement on our basic sociological direction. There are currently more people living in cities than outside of them for the first time in history. I believe this is a trend unlikely to reverse itself as our economy, energy demands and improved city development point in the direction of urbanization. At the very least, we see a heavy bias in polls toward walkable neighborhoods, particularly among those soon to enter the housing market. From this I would argue that an urban home has a better chance of retaining it’s value (or increasing it) than it’s counterpart in a distant, inaccessible exurb.

This doesn't add much. I just liked the image. Click to see it bigger.

There are, of course, a number of arguments against my position. One could point out that education is often a significant expense among those who can afford to own homes in the city. This is true, but it effects less than half the households and is, I think, likely to be a less and less significant problem as demand improves urban public education. One could also point out that crime presents a higher risk in cities, but as our cities become denser and more affluent these problems begin to balance. Also, the risks presented by urban crime are minimal compared to those presented by car accidents (a much more suburban problem). Costs of food and other necessities can be higher in the city, but this is largely a reflection of individual neighborhoods and not the overall urban environment where bargains are still to be had. It is also likely a function of fewer WalMart style shopping opportunities, a situation which can be tough on the wallet but easy on the soul.

I am aware that I am only barely qualified to act as a catalyst for conversation on this topic, but I felt the potential for discussion outweighed the risk of embarrassment if someone calls me out on my poor arguments. So let’s get to it. Where am I wrong? Where am I right? Where could I have been even more right if I actually knew what I was talking about? Are the ongoing costs of homeownership actually lower in the city or am I imagining things? If so, do these lower expenses beyond the mortgage payments make urban buyers a better risk? Do banks take ownership expenses into account? Should they?

The comment section is aptly named. Use it.




Website migration, maintenance and customization provided by Grafware.