Earlier today, @DuncanKinney tweeted a link to an article about long commutes and their effects on happiness. The general notion is that long commutes suck, and that they severely reduce our happiness.
[...] time in traffic is torture, and the big house isn’t worth it. According to the calculations of Frey and Stutzer, a person with a one-hour commute has to earn 40 percent more money to be as satisfied with life as someone who walks to the office. Another study, led by Daniel Kahneman and the economist Alan Krueger, surveyed nine hundred working women in Texas and found that commuting was, by far, the least pleasurable part of their day.
I find this interesting, because I was having a chat with some friends the other day about living in a Toronto suburb and commuting for an hour or more each way, 5 days a week, versus paying the same amount of money for a tiny condo in Toronto proper. My personal thought was that I would rather live in the small condo in the heart of the city.
I mean, what’s the point of living in or near a big city if you get all of the headaches (a long commute and traffic jams) and none of the benefits (walkable communities, easy access to arts and culture).
I feel this way about Edmonton, too.
I can’t imagine living out in the boonies. Living in Terwilliger or other far-away-from-downtown developments has no appeal to me. I want to be central. I want to be close to the core (or at least a quick LRT trip away, which could make those south side suburbs a bit more appealing to me in the near future). I want to live in a walkable neighbourhood.
Right now, I live close enough to downtown that I can walk to just about anything I need: groceries, movies, shopping… I can even walk to work when the weather is nice enough.
I can’t really imagine why anyone would choose otherwise. Though, according to the article I quoted from, it’s because humans generally use faulty logic when making choices.
Consider two housing options: a three bedroom apartment that is located in the middle of a city, with a ten minute commute time, or a five bedroom McMansion on the urban outskirts, with a forty-five minute commute. “People will think about this trade-off for a long time,” Dijksterhuis says. “And most them will eventually choose the large house. After all, a third bathroom or extra bedroom is very important for when grandma and grandpa come over for Christmas, whereas driving two hours each day is really not that bad.” What’s interesting, Dijksterhuis says, is that the more time people spend deliberating, the more important that extra space becomes. They’ll imagine all sorts of scenarios (a big birthday party, Thanksgiving dinner, another child) that will turn the suburban house into an absolute necessity. The pain of a lengthy commute, meanwhile, will seem less and less significant, at least when compared to the allure of an extra bathroom. But, as Dijksterhuis points out, that reasoning process is exactly backwards: “The additional bathroom is a completely superfluous asset for at least 362 or 363 days each year, whereas a long commute does become a burden after a while.”
That, I suppose, could be an explanation for a big part of why Edmonton—and so many other cities in Western Canada and the United States—grows outward instead of upward.
The question, then, isn’t why do people make the choice to live in a far-off suburb. The question is: how do we help people to realize that the choice they’re making might not be the right one? And, given the large quote I included previously, we’re not talking about the wrong choice for the environment or the community; we’re talking about the wrong choice for the individual.
If we can help individuals realize that the suburbs may not be the right choice for them personally, we’ll reap benefits both individually, socially, and environmentally. That sounds like a win-win-win situation to me. But how do we get to that point?
Read the full article from which I quoted at: Commuting : The Frontal Cortex.
18 Comments
Very interesting article, thanks for sharing Adam! I don’t have an answer, but I know it won’t be easy. It’s going to take coordination, hard work, and passion.
the solution to this, as with many of life’s problems, is forced re-education camps.
seriously though, it is surprisingly difficult to explain to some people why having a house in the distant ‘burbs can be burdensome. I always assumed a big part of it was our cultural narrative around owning homes: that is what people do to show progress in their lives, they get married, move into a house, etc.
Mack – You’re welcome! I thought it was fascinating, so I figured it was worth sharing.
Allan – I think you’re right about the big house with the white picket fence being a part of the North American cultural narrative. And, while I’m certainly the type of person who prefers a house and yard over a condo with a postage stamp balcony, I have never had a desire to live out in the ‘burbs. That said, since so many people want a house, if the ones near the core are full, people are going to move out to the suburbs to achieve that goal.
Because of that, convincing people that the McMansion in Sherwood Park might not make them as happy as a 2-bedroom condo on Jasper Ave isn’t as simple as saying, “But your commute will be so much shorter!”
The appeal of quieter and cleaner neighbourhoods and newer, decent schools is huge when you’ve got children. Raising a kid downtown seems nearly unthinkable (are there many young families living downtown?), and when they get older there are plenty of reasons for not wanting to be anywhere near downtown. I don’t think the extra bathroom or other household amenities have much to do with wanting to live in the burbs. Wanting your kids to grow up in a relatively quiet and safe place is the more likely answer.
Mike – I think that most people tend to over-estimate the level of danger that exists in the downtown of Edmonton. Perhaps other cities truly do have dangerous downtowns, but that’s not particularly true of Edmonton. I’ve looked at the crime stats and, while there is a fair amount of property crime (i.e., vandalism) the downtown core is actually not much more dangerous than many other parts of the city. If I recall correctly, it’s not the area with the highest instance of violent crimes (i.e., dangerous crime).
That said, I’m not necessarily advocating raising children right downtown. But older, central communities—such as the Price Rupert and Queen Mary Park neighbourhoods, between Oliver and Kingsway—fit the bill of being both a quiet and safe place to raise kids, as well as being communities that allow for a short commute to most parts of the city (especially to downtown).
As for young families downtown, there are at least enough to support elementary schools like Oliver School. I don’t know the exact numbers, but they’re obviously there (though, Oliver isn’t quite downtown, so I’ll admit that I may be stretching the definition a tad).
There are also a very large number of young families in the 118th / Alberta Avenue area—largely because it was one of the few communities in which young families could afford to buy a house during the boom. This neighbourhood has long been considered dangerous. In fact, as the poorest neighbourhood in the entire province, it was also one of the most dangerous in the city. Yet, people moved in with their kids and made an effort to clean the place up. Their efforts are paying off, and there is no reason that similar efforts couldn’t happen in other central neighbourhoods.
The Alberta Avenue area is also a fairly central location, and is well serviced by transit (especially on the east end, near Coliseum Station), so it generally fits the bill of the type of neighbourhood I’m referring to in this post. Perhaps, by using the condo-on-Jasper example, I limited the scope of what I’m trying to describe.
As for the comment about “newer, decent schools,” I would argue that newer doesn’t equal better. I went to high school in a neighbourhood just a few minutes from downtown. As Edmonton goes, it’s an older neighbourhood and an older school, but it was one of the best in the city. It was also one of the most multi-cultural and multi-ethnic in the city (and, I would later find out, in the province). I got a good education and valuable exposure to other cultures and Canadians who do not fall into the WASP mould.
Having said all of that, I don’t have kids, so what the hell do I know?
As a postscript to the massive comment above, I would also add that a shorter commute means having more time to spend with your children—something every parent should consider when choosing where they want to live and raise their kids. Generally, as long as they’re not going hungry, children need your time more than they need your money.
Yet another postscript: if we designed our urban centres (i.e., our downtowns) to be more family-friendly in the first place—with a greater number of parks, plazas, and other public places, for example—we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Downtowns are seen as bad places to raise children partially because of poor urban planning, and partially because of a cultural narrative that devalues the urban in favour of the suburban (which is interesting, as this narrative didn’t exist before WWII).
I don’t live right downtown anymore but what if your job isn’t downtown and you’re not commuting this said distance to get to work but simply walking across the house to your office….I think a lot of these families with large houses work from home now as well which isn’t mentioned in your article at all. I may not live in the core of the city but I don’t work in the core anymore either and I actually drive the opposite flow of the morning rush hour traffic and find it a very enjoyable commute now….
I certainly wouldn’t claim that living downtown is ideal for everyone. If you work on the edge of the city, then living downtown certainly doesn’t make sense. You should probably live near the edge of the city in that case.
I don’t know the stats on people working from home, but I would guess that it’s not a majority of people, regardless of where they live. But, if you work from home, it doesn’t matter as much where you live. In this case, then, perhaps you should choose where to live based on where your social activities take place.
I’m certainly not saying that the ideas in this post—or the articles I quote from—apply to everyone. For some people, living in the suburbs is the right choice. The point is that people often make choices about where they live for the wrong reasons, which has all kinds of negative impacts for people as individuals and for society as a whole.
It’s not about downtown vs the suburbs. It’s about choosing a home that makes sense for your individual situation. And, according to the articles that I quoted, having a short commute is much more important, in terms of happiness, than having a big house.
I agree with your last statement. A shorter commute – from wherever to wherever – is worth a ton. Truly worthwhile jobs often come with golden handcuffs – the benefits, wages, and working conditions are so appealing (and necessary) that they outweigh everything else.
As someone how has cut his commute approximately in half, and who now takes transit instead of driving, I can attest to the mental health benefits of a shorter commute. I’m happier, I’m home earlier, and I’m more relaxed at the start and end of the work day, having not had to deal with traffic.
It happens that I live and work centrally, but that’s almost tangential to the fact that my commute is now very short.
I have always had short commutes and thus hate to think if I ever have a long one. I think I may go mental.
You’ve been lucky, then. I’ve had some long ones (long by Edmonton standards, at least). It’s not the distance, so much as the traffic that makes it take long. Inching forward is painful. Start/stop traffic is painful. Heavy traffic isn’t necessarily so bad, as long as it’s moving steadily. But, inevitably, it it start/stop, because I’ve almost never had a commute that involved a freeway.
You’re very lucky to have managed to go so long in life without having had to suffer through a long commute. I hope your luck continues!
I don’t think anyone should be talked into living anywhere that they don’t want to; however, yes, I do agree there are many misconceptions about downtown-living. People have different tastes and that’s OK. Personally, at this stage in my life, I very much prefer the convienience and pace of downtown living, but in a few years I would love to live in a sturdy character home in one of the many beautiful mature neighbourhoods in this city.
A distinction has to be made between the type of burbs you are talking about… and for many people I think it’s not really only a question of trading a short commute for extra square footage…there are a lot of folks, many without children who live in the far reaches of the city because they want a decked out, fully loaded, new home with all the trimmings. Many of these people don’t see these extras as a trade off – they just truly prefer that kind of lifestyle. It may be hard for urbanites to imagine that living in a beige box in a newer community where all the houses look identical, next to the freeway and a megaplex is an ideal living situation, but for some it truly is.
With that said, as a new home owner myself, I must say that when I was shopping for a home, I struggled very much with the balance of what I wanted and what was a smart decision. As much as I couldn’t see myself in a newer community on the outskirts of town, I was very afraid of the costs/troubles associated with much of what I could afford downtown or closer to the centre of the city. I fell in love with many older, houses/condos in favorable central neighbourhoods, that while very charming had endless problems with them…. that while being comfortable with the listing price could see myself soon not being able to afford the repairs or increase in condo fees, etc. Or worse yet, find discover some major problem about the place and not be able to sell it. Those headaches could be a lot worse than a long commute. It’s a balance of personal preference and needs…. do you value space? neighbourhood? interior? parking? There are a million many things to think about when buying property. If you’re renting, that’s a whole different thing.
Anyway, as you know, I love downtown and I boast about all it has to offer, but its not for everyone at every stage in their life.
You should really see the documentary “Radiant City” if you haven’t – you’d love it. It’s all about modern suburbia and the decline in authentic neighbourhoods and communities in north america.
hey mr snider your my teacher
Seeing as I’m not a teacher, that seems unlikely. But if I was, I’d be an English teacher and I’d start correcting your grammar.
Hi Mandie,
It’s not about talking people into living places that they don’t want to. And it’s not about saying that the suburbs are “wrong.” For many people, they aren’t.
I’m simply saying that, for many people, the suburbs are actually the wrong choice, but for whatever reason, they convince themselves that the suburbs are the place to be. So, for those people who would be happier and better-off living in a more urban environment, how do we help them to understand that where they choose to live has a huge impact on their happiness, and that the place they think is the right choice might not be?
I’ll definitely check out that documentary, too, if I can track down a copy.
fo shizzle, snider. i believe you can rent it at the oliver blockbuster – you should check it out for sure, i really think you would dig.