Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

What kind of property do you want to raise kids in?
Apartment 4%  4%  [ 3 ]
Semi-D 25%  25%  [ 17 ]
Detached 52%  52%  [ 35 ]
One off rural 18%  18%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 67
Author Message
 Post subject: Going Japanese AKA The Disapearance Of The Western World
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:13 am 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 8917
Location: Hollywood
Initial post may be a bit disjointed but it might link up during discussion

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2713001904

Quote:
House prices and birth rates: The impact of the real estate market on the decision to have a baby


Quote:
Abstract

This project investigates how changes in Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)-level house prices affect household fertility decisions. Recognizing that housing is a major cost associated with child rearing, and assuming that children are normal goods, we hypothesize that an increase in house prices will have a negative price effect on current period fertility. This applies to both potential first-time homeowners and current homeowners who might upgrade to a bigger house with the addition of a child. On the other hand, for current homeowners, an increase in MSA-level house prices will increase home equity, leading to a positive effect on birth rates. Our results suggest that indeed, short-term increases in house prices lead to a decline in births among non-owners and a net increase among owners. The estimates imply that a $10,000 increase leads to a 5% increase in fertility rates among owners and a 2.4% decrease among non-owners. At the mean U.S. home ownership rate, these estimates imply that the net effect of a $10,000 increase in house prices is a 0.8% increase in current period fertility rates. Given underlying differences in home ownership rates, the predicted net effect of house price changes varies across demographic groups. In addition, we find that changes in house prices exert a larger effect on current period birth rates than do changes in unemployment rates



The above results could be linked to housing bubbles occurring at times of full employment. What is interesting is how renters fertility rates decrease.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2007-014.pdf
Quote:
Fertility differences by housing type:
an effect of housing conditions or of
selective moves?


Quote:
This study examines fertility variation across housing types and childbearing
patterns after housing changes.

While the effect of family changes on housing
choices has been studied in detail, little is known about childbearing patterns
within various housing types, despite the fact that many studies suggest
housing as an important determinant of fertility. We use longitudinal register
data from Finland and apply hazard regression. Firstly, we observe a significant
variation in the fertility levels across housing types – fertility is highest among
couples in single-family houses and lowest among those in apartments, with the
variation remaining significant even after controlling for the demographic and
socio-economic characteristics of women. Secondly, our results show elevated
fertility levels after couples have changed their housing, suggesting that much
of the fertility variation across housing types could be attributed to selective
moves. Thirdly, the study also reveals relatively a high risk of third birth for
couples in single-family houses several years after the move, suggesting that
living in spacious housing and in a family-friendly environment for a longer
time may lead to higher fertility


I.e urbanisation and higher density living will lead to lower fertility rates.
During the bubble huge numbers of apartments and townhouses were built. Feck all 4 bed semi-ds or detached houses were built.
Feck all 3/4 bed apartments were built either.


http://www.news.com.au/finance/real-est ... 6135327168
Quote:
SYDNEY'S focus on high-density housing threatens traditional family lifestyles and could cause lower fertility rates, a renowned demographer has warned.

Academic Joel Kotkin has studied the trends in fertility in cities around the globe.

Sydney needed suburbia for families as it faced a "grey tsunami" of retiring boomers and a low fertility rate of 2 per cent, he told the Property Council of Australia's Cities Summit.

Professor Kotkin said Sydney's planning laws tended to favour high-rise developments concentrated closer to city centres.

"Why, in a city like Sydney, where you had wonderful inner ring suburbs, with single family homes, very pleasant places, places you want to raise kids, do they want to densify them and turn them into places people don't want to raise kids?" he said.

"Where you have high amounts of high-density housing you have very low birth rates ... where you have density, you tend to have very few children."

Professor Kotkin, fellow at California's Chapman University and London think-tank the Legatum Institute, said high density was more effective at limiting the number of children than China's one-child policy.


Here is an old thread with stats on what types of accommodation was built during the bubble ( for some of the years anyway)
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1861

From that thread.....in 2004 out of a total of 76,554 completions, 16,106 were apartments, double the mount built in the year 2000. 21% of all completions. By 2008 67% of properties built in Dublin were apartments. By this stage 10% of the housing stock had become apartments.

So when it comes to raising children would living in an apartment put you off somewhat? Would you prefer to move to a house?
It also raises sustainability of urban centers somewhat. To what point do we keep densifying? To what end? At what point do you say we are now decreasing the quality of life here and should be looking at diverting resources to another urban center.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Posts: 641
I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:28 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 1, 1970
Posts: 23210
the liquidator wrote:
I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.


It' shard to take such claims seriously and it's not so recent but I think David Attenborough is misguided at best these days and possibly an easily mislead type figurehead.

Overpopulation is a dangerous myth. It fails to address the real issues and helps to mask the perpetrators of genuine woe and suffering. It's an easy go-to without much thought, sounds responsible, pragmatic and invokes much head nodding. Yet it's malthusian logic and deeply impoverished rational at best because of that, at worst it's pure mind control a.k.a anti-human ∴ anti-life. I've seen this logic in the ranks of extreme vegans or animal rights activists who deem human life a threat. It's not logical Jim.

Earth is primed to enable life. Spaceship Earth is loaded with a precious yet abundant theming cargo of life! Estimated close to 9 million species of life and the population of each?

Does it matter?

Is it the right question?

I understand how David feels maybe with the encroachment of human habitats into wildlife areas but he's naturally biased in more than one way.

To the topic at hand. Fertility, yes it certainly is dictated by your sense of security and shelter. No doubt about it. Those that have launched an attack on it's stability are engage din a very insidious form of population control that transcends merely controlling the body count.

_________________
Follow The Pin - https://twitter.com/dailypinster

"Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers." - Buckminster Fuller

"I was comfortable with a couple of banks being married today, instead i wake up and find I'm married to the banks." - Catbear

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:04 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Mar 31, 2010
Posts: 2773
Have had one child - up to about three years of age - in a two-bed apartment. Moved to a three bed semi and had another. Then moved to a four bed detached with still just the two kids. All were fine in their own way at the time - but it's hard to beat detached with a bit of space...and no noise worries is a big plus for me...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:30 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17351
Location: To the right of the decimal place
HiFi wrote:
Have had one child - up to about three years of age - in a two-bed apartment. Moved to a three bed semi and had another. Then moved to a four bed detached with still just the two kids. All were fine in their own way at the time - but it's hard to beat detached with a bit of space...and no noise worries is a big plus for me...


The point is that all are appropriate at various stages. Apartment's aren't "bad". For example, small 1-beds enable people in their 20s to live alone at affordable rates, rather than house-sharing. 2-bed apartment can be perfect for a couple with one kid but not ready to commit to an area. If we built decent size 3-bed apartments with decent amenities they would be fine for families too, but unfortunately we don't. The question "when it comes to raising children would living in an apartment put you off somewhat" doesn't make sense -- living in an apartment is a good time to start having kids.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:39 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 2135
Dublin is short of spacious apartments.

Hence semi-Ds full of house-sharers, empty nesters reluctant to move out, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:42 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Apr 4, 2010
Posts: 4720
Open Window wrote:
the liquidator wrote:
I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.


It' shard to take such claims seriously and it's not so recent but I think David Attenborough is misguided at best these days and possibly an easily mislead type figurehead.

Overpopulation is a dangerous myth. It fails to address the real issues and helps to mask the perpetrators of genuine woe and suffering. It's an easy go-to without much thought, sounds responsible, pragmatic and invokes much head nodding. Yet it's malthusian logic and deeply impoverished rational at best because of that, at worst it's pure mind control a.k.a anti-human ∴ anti-life. I've seen this logic in the ranks of extreme vegans or animal rights activists who deem human life a threat. It's not logical Jim.

Earth is primed to enable life. Spaceship Earth is loaded with a precious yet abundant theming cargo of life! Estimated close to 9 million species of life and the population of each?

Does it matter?

Is it the right question?

I understand how David feels maybe with the encroachment of human habitats into wildlife areas but he's naturally biased in more than one way.

To the topic at hand. Fertility, yes it certainly is dictated by your sense of security and shelter. No doubt about it. Those that have launched an attack on it's stability are engage din a very insidious form of population control that transcends merely controlling the body count.



Of course people should be discouraged from breeding. That's because children are odious little shits and the world would be an enormously pleasanter place without any. I've said it before; we should be grow in tanks and not let loose on the world until we're at least 25.
(other opinions are available. :D )

As Borges said, "Mirrors and procreation are abominations, for they multiply mankind and hence his miseries." :wink:

_________________
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.


Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter X, Part II,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:43 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Apr 4, 2010
Posts: 4720
Skippy 3 wrote:
Dublin is short of spacious apartments.

Hence semi-Ds full of house-sharers, empty nesters reluctant to move out, etc.


House sharing is inferior to an apartment of one's own, but an apartment of one's own is inferior to a house of one's own (at least for anybody who enjoys gardening).

_________________
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.


Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter X, Part II,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:46 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 2135
Madness of Crowds wrote:
Skippy 3 wrote:
Dublin is short of spacious apartments.

Hence semi-Ds full of house-sharers, empty nesters reluctant to move out, etc.


House sharing is inferior to an apartment of one's own, but an apartment of one's own is inferior to a house of one's own (at least for anybody who enjoys gardening).


I don't know why Irish apartments aren't built so that (at least some) ground-floor apartments have a private garden. They are perfectly fine once you don't mind being overlooked.

It is very common in other countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 9:50 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jan 4, 2013
Posts: 17351
Location: To the right of the decimal place
Madness of Crowds wrote:
Skippy 3 wrote:
Dublin is short of spacious apartments.

Hence semi-Ds full of house-sharers, empty nesters reluctant to move out, etc.


House sharing is inferior to an apartment of one's own, but an apartment of one's own is inferior to a house of one's own (at least for anybody who enjoys gardening).


But not if you're in your 20s and have no desire to engage in any maintenance other than occasionally ironing a shirt. I think apartments suit most 20-somethings much better than houses.

_________________
— Try, fail, understand, win. —


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:03 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jan 25, 2007
Posts: 1811
Skippy 3 wrote:
I don't know why Irish apartments aren't built so that (at least some) ground-floor apartments have a private garden. They are perfectly fine once you don't mind being overlooked.

It is very common in other countries.

I like the German way of doing apartments- have a half submerged basement( possibly with small windows) then the ground floor windows start at about 7 feet- I.e. above eye height)- it gives them much better privacy. It is a more urban solution than the garden in front is the apartment ( facade onto street) -but less urban than the apartment over commercial units approach.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:35 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Jan 2, 2008
Posts: 1591
As politically incorrect as it might sound, the reality is government policy encourages unmarried mothers on the social to have as many kids as possible to get a bigger house. Also, to stay "unmarried" while living with a partner.

In contrast, those who choose to work and save for a deposit on a house often delay starting a family until they feel they can provide best for their family. Government policy, or lack there of, discourages middle income earners from starting a family early.

It's not just an Irish issue. Spend longer in education, 4/5 years in college, travel for a year. Start a grad job late and work your way to a decent wage. Then, start saving for a deposit,expense of a wedding etc.

Sample of 11 of my mates who are married or engaged; six of us have kids (5 home owners, 1 renter). None of us had kids before the age of 30 and all in mid 30's now. All mid to very high earners. 7 own a home of which 4 were given land out the country, 2 purchased in last 12 months and 1 in '06.

_________________
“Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then shits all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:21 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Apr 6, 2010
Posts: 401
Open Window wrote:
the liquidator wrote:
I'm with David Attenborough's recently aired views here. We could do with some lower fertility rates in general in this world. India and China have millenia of human existance to figure out themselves how they get their own houses in order, or their increasingly educated populace will just suffer the consequences.


It' shard to take such claims seriously and it's not so recent but I think David Attenborough is misguided at best these days and possibly an easily mislead type figurehead.

Overpopulation is a dangerous myth. It fails to address the real issues and helps to mask the perpetrators of genuine woe and suffering. It's an easy go-to without much thought, sounds responsible, pragmatic and invokes much head nodding. Yet it's malthusian logic and deeply impoverished rational at best because of that, at worst it's pure mind control a.k.a anti-human ∴ anti-life. I've seen this logic in the ranks of extreme vegans or animal rights activists who deem human life a threat. It's not logical Jim.

Earth is primed to enable life. Spaceship Earth is loaded with a precious yet abundant theming cargo of life! Estimated close to 9 million species of life and the population of each?

Does it matter?

Is it the right question?

I understand how David feels maybe with the encroachment of human habitats into wildlife areas but he's naturally biased in more than one way.

To the topic at hand. Fertility, yes it certainly is dictated by your sense of security and shelter. No doubt about it. Those that have launched an attack on it's stability are engage din a very insidious form of population control that transcends merely controlling the body count.


I find the numbers on this clock pretty scary. The current trend of unlimited continuous growth (be it population growth or economic assumptions) is impossible but where and how will the growth end?
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I travel to south east England quite often and I find it way too populated already. It is such a relief to return to less populated Ireland.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:23 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Sep 13, 2012
Posts: 5399
Creative Accountant wrote:
I find the numbers on this clock pretty scary. The current trend of unlimited continuous growth (be it population growth or economic assumptions) is impossible but where and how will the growth end?
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I travel to south east England quite often and I find it way too populated already. It is such a relief to return to less populated Ireland.


The answer is "nobody knows". Or maybe "when food production efficiency requires us to choose between bacon and children*".

* Eating one, making the other. Or maybe eating both. Who knows.

Image

_________________
"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favour"
Tyrion Lannister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fertility Rates/Property/Urbanisation jumble
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:58 am 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: Nov 6, 2006
Posts: 8917
Location: Hollywood
https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/imag ... trevor.pdf

Quote:
The impact of density on physical activity
A strong body of evidence confirms the association between higher residential density (and
the associated mixed land uses) and increased transport walking across all age groups.4-27
The association is particularly evident in adult populations. Moreover, living closer to shops
and services is a consistent predictor of walking, both for transport and recreational
purposes, for all age groups


Quote:
There was little clear evidence that increasing population or dwelling
density per se was associated with increased all-cause mortality,
The relationship between crowding and mortality was more consistent, regardless of whether
crowding was measured by persons per room or the number of housing units per
structure



Quote:
Increased density appears to be protective for cardiovascular
disease


Quote:
A small number of studies have found positive relationships between total
cancer mortality and colon cancer, and population density, for both males and females.57,58 A
positive relationship has also been identified between breast cancer in women and
population density


Quote:
The main impact of density on all-cause mortality appears to be related to crowding rather
than population density per se. To meet the needs of families, for example, future higher
density housing developments may need to have a minimum percentage of housing large
enough to accommodate families


Quote:
There is consistent evidence that proximity to busy roads, high traffic density and increased
exposure to pollution are linked to a range of respiratory conditions.


Quote:
The impact of density on mental health
Studying the impact of the built environment on mental health is a complex and relatively
new field. However, even discounting the sociodemographic characteristics of residents,
living in higher density housing appears to have a range of potential direct and indirect
influences on mental health. Importantly, some of these impacts appear to be influenced by
the location, design, and construction of high density housing.77-79 Individually and
collectively these factors appear to directly influence mental health by exposing residents to
environmental stressors, or indirectly influence mental health by impacting activities of daily
living and social interactions between residents. Moreover, the incidence of social incivilities
(including crime) in the building itself and surrounding areas, can affect residents fear of
crime. This can affect their sense of control, and result in social and physical withdrawal.
Crowding, noise, indoor air quality and light appear to directly influence mental health. The
location, construction and design of higher density housing directly affects each of these
environmental stressors. While acute exposure to relatively minor environmental stressors
can be transiently stressful, continual exposure to ongoing noise, pollutants or crowding can
result in chronic stress, which has important implications for mental health


Quote:
People living on higher floors, particularly stay-at-home women with children,
appear to be at greater risk of poor mental health


Quote:
The evidence suggests that residents of high-rise housing have more mental
health problems than people living in low-rise or single-detached houses


Quote:
to optimise outcomes across the spectrum for current and/or future residents,
there appears to be a strong preference and desirability for families, for example, to live on
the lower floors of medium-density housing of no higher than three to five storeys. Moreover,
this accommodation should be large enough to avoid issues of over-crowding, and allow
families to be co-located to create a sense of community. Achieving higher densities through
lower rise development would appear to be optimal not only for families, but also older
adults.



A less conclusive study http://hiaconnect.edu.au/wp-content/upl ... eview1.pdf

Quote:
Sydney’s high-density housing could be a major factor in the cause of ­mental health issues, according to a leading environmental consultant.

While highrise living ­appears to be the way of the future for Sydney, that mode of living may be detrimental to our health according to Dr Tony Recsei.

The president of Save Our Suburbs and environmental consultant said serious consideration needed to be given to future planning options in the city and surrounding suburbs due to increase health risk that have been linked to high-density living.


Quote:
Dr Recsei pointed out that there was a 70 per cent increased risk of residents developing schizophrenia and 16 per cent risk of depression in overdeveloped precincts.



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslo ... 8ca50576a9

Quote:
According to a new study by UC Berkeley researchers, population-dense cities contribute less greenhouse-gas emissions per person than other areas of the country, but these cities’ extensive suburbs essentially wipe out the climate benefits.
Dominated by emissions from cars, trucks and other forms of transportation, suburbs account for about 50 percent of all household emissions – largely carbon dioxide – in the United States.


http://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/sub ... ban-cores/

Quote:
A Carbon Consumption Comparison of Rural and Urban Lifestyles

Abstract: Sustainable consumption has been addressed from different perspectives in numerous studies. Recently, urban structure-related lifestyle issues have gained more emphasis in the research as cities search for effective strategies to reduce their 80% share of the global carbon emissions. However, the prevailing belief often seen is that cities would be more sustainable in nature compared to surrounding suburban and rural areas. This paper will illustrate, by studying four different urban structure related lifestyles in Finland, that the situation might be reversed. Actually, substantially more carbon emissions seem to be caused on a per capita level in cities than in suburban and rural areas. This is mainly due to the higher income level in larger urban centers, but even housing-related emissions seem to favor less urbanized areas. The method of the study is a consumption-based life cycle assessment of carbon emissions. In more detail, a hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) model, that is comprehensive in providing a full inventory and can accommodate process data, is utilized.



http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... dTYf5jWTpg

Another paper backs up the above with further research

Quote:
In part I (Heinonen et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 025003) we looked into this situation in Finland, showing how the residents of the most urbanized areas bring about the highest GHG emissions due to their higher consumption volumes and the economies-of-scale advantages in the less urbanized areas. In part II here, we concentrate only on the middle-income segment and look for differences in the lifestyles when the budget constraints are equal. Here we also add the variables housing type and motorization into the assessment. The same time-use and private expenditure data as in part I and the same GHG assessment method are used here to maintain high transparency and comparability between the two parts. The results of the study imply that larger family sizes and economies-of-scale effects in the less dense areas offset the advantages of more dense living when the emissions are assessed on per capita basis. Also, at equal income levels the carbon footprints vary surprisingly little due to complementary effects of the majority of low-carbon lifestyle choices.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 8/3/035050


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS   

Follow, Retweet @dailypinster

  

Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!