Source: Real Trends —
In a recent chat with two PropTech executives concerned about rising house prices, an interesting linguistic distinction was the focus of our discussion. The two words were affordable and affordability.
In the housing market, the first has a particular resonance, and the second has come to have a specific meaning, defined by the strange times in which we live.
For most people in the industry, the term affordable connotes a particular class of housing that is specifically intended for people of low or moderate income. The connotation can even carry pejorative valences — subsidies, populist political trickery, and so on.
Affordable housing discussions almost always are connected to the notion of “political compromise,” which is to say the compromise between the commonweal-focused public sector and the profit-driven private sector.
The term affordability comes at us from a different angle. It connotes relativity. Whatever one’s income, affordability is a relative term. Of course, the word affordable is too, but it has come to mean a very specific thing in the U.S. and, as such, creates a particular metaphor that is not necessarily synonymous with affordability.
Let’s go from the abstract and philosophical to the real and practical. I live in Bellevue, Washington. The median house price in this city is $1.2 million. Because of this stratospheric number, it doesn’t take a mathematician to know that a family of four making, say, $150,000-per-annum is priced out of the market.
As a point of note, this family is in the 85th percentile nationwide with regard to income but will still feel inadequate when it comes to housing in Bellevue. So affordability in Bellevue has really little to do with the notion of affordable, as we use the word in this industry.
Let’s talk affordability
;
