Project 2

 

Housing is an essential component of any city or metropolitan area. While housing may seem simple and straightforward at first glance, it is a complicated and nuanced field of study within urban economics. Due to the wide variety of housing types, other land use policies, and other factors such as income there exists a large range of opinions on housing policy within professional fields, politics, and the general public. One of the central topics within housing policy is costs, for both consumers and for the government. Housing affordability, fiscal sustainability of local government, and housing types are interconnected topics. Two arenas of contention within planning are the construction of luxury housing and the density of housing. There are varying opinions, stances, and data behind each of these and I will present two artefacts that examine luxury housing and housing density respectively, and which present arguments in favor of luxury housing construction and higher density housing.

            City-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains is a working research paper by a team of researchers from Finland on housing prices in Helsinki. Specifically, they investigate the how new, usually up market, housing affects the supply of lower market housing. Their research found that moving chains, in other words a domino effect of sorts, opened up housing in the lower price levels of the housing market. The purpose of the paper is to inform other economics, politicians, and other experts in the housing field about how moving chains work in housing. Specifically, they are arguing that the construction of new housing, even if it is up market, is in fact good to alleviate housing affordability issues.

This paper is intended for expert audiences, and as such is in the genre of a formal, academic research study. The paper is written in formal, written English. The authors of the paper are not native English speakers, and as such there are some minor oddities typically not found in this genre. However, this are few if any errors in the text and it does not have any effect on the quality of the paper. This style of writing carries with it an appeal to ethos. While the authors do not intend to use a formal style to impress the audience or to sound intelligent, many would question the validity of a paper published outside of this style that is being passed off as an academic paper. Academic style serves to both standardize and simplify research, as well as to act as a barrier of entry of sorts. The style conveys to others that the authors know what they are saying and are to be treated as an authority on the topic.

            The paper uses appeals to logos as its primary means of persuasion. Researchers use papers to publish and communicate their findings, and as such this paper contains a large amount of data. Most of the data is expressed in both text form as well as in data tables, charts, and other visual displays. The text is used to further elaborate on the data and explain what it means for the argument. This can be seen on page thirteen where the authors restate the data to support a previously stated argument: “This interpretation is consistent with Figure 4c, which depicts origin neighborhoods based on 250 square meter grids. The share of residents originating from the bottom quintile grids is only 10% and the share increases gradually in subsequent rounds reaching 30% by rounds five and six.” The authors use a map on page six to show per square meter property values in Euros in different parts of the Helsinki metropolitan area. The map shows the relationship between housing prices and area. It is also a more effective and pleasant way to depict this date than to simply list prices based on region. The authors use a color scale to depict varying housing prices. Darker colors represent higher values while lighter colors represent lower values. Price, in a sense, is a measure of value density. Color is viewed similarly, with lightness being perceived as less dense than darker hues by many. There is also background information presented in text form that is used as the basis for the arguments supported by the data they collected. The authors write on page five “The HMA consists of four municipalities (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen) that together comprise a unified commuting zone.  The total population of the area is roughly 1.2 million individuals and there are some 585,000 housing units, 45% of which are rental units. Roughly 18% of the total housing stock is rent-controlled social housing. In the rest of the stock, prices and rents are determined in markets.” The authors use this information to establish their “sample size” say to speak, and to provide more context to the scale of the changes they recorded in the housing market.

            Sustainable Prosperity’s infographic is comparing the difference in cost between suburban and urban housing to cities. The data is based on reports from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Its purpose is to persuade viewers that policy favoring urban development patterns instead of suburban ones are beneficial. The intended audience are people who do not currently support urban development patterns who are also relatively neutral on the topic. Additionally, the audience is comprised of non-experts. This influenced the creator(s)’ choice of genre and medium. The genre is non-academic and follows the conventions of other infographics that display serious topics in a friendly and enjoyable style. The graphic multimodal as it contains both text and illustrations. Illustration was used instead of photos to both allow the creator(s) greater control of the imagery as well as to achieve a certain aesthetic. The style of the illustration is very similar to the flat, minimalist art style common in contemporary advertising. It bares a resemblance to the style used in Facebook and Google advertising. The creator chose this style because it reflects contemporary style, thus making the graphic look trendy, is familiar to the audience, meaning they spend less time processing the art style and more on the information, and it is both easy for the creator to produce and for the audience to understand. The creator needs to catch the audience’s attention and present the information in a fun, straightforward manner because the viewers are not experts. Non-expert audiences are unlikely to read content about the topic if it were presented differently.

            The infographic primarily uses appeals to logos. The argument in favor of cities is based on annual cost per household as opposed to more subjective arguments, such as the claim that urban living is more enjoyable. The left-hand side shows costs in suburban areas and the right-hand side shows costs in urban areas. At the top a suburban style home is shown next to an urban style home. Below the homes is the total per household cost to a municipality. The costs are then broken down by category below. While the total cost in suburban areas is approximately 2.5 times higher than urban areas, some costs have even higher ratios. Additionally, all services are more expensive in suburban areas than urban except for trash collection. Breaking down the costs into categories is important to show how cost-efficient cities are. The creator is stating that not only are cities more cost-efficient in totality, almost every municipal service in a city is cost-efficient as well. The implication of the argument is that cities are more financially sustainable than suburban areas and that since household costs for public infrastructure and services are lower that taxes could be lower as well. This appeals to rational self-interest to want lower taxes. The implication of greater financial sustainability is an appeal to both pathos, as this is generally good for residents, but also an appeal to pathos in that fiscal responsibility sounds like a good idea. This appeal to fiscal responsibility also reaches to more politically conservative viewers, who are more likely to both live in suburban areas and be against urban development patterns. Conversely, the use of terms such as “sustainability” appeal to more left leaning viewers as it is reminiscent of environmental sustainability arguments.  It is important for organizations that advocate for causes that are relatively detached from ideology to appeal to different political ideologies. The illustrations themselves also serve an argumentative purpose. The depiction of the urban house has a subtle argumentative purpose in particular. The creator chose to depict urban housing as a rowhouse or townhouse as opposed to an apartment building. Many people opposed to urban levels of population density often argue that living in cities entails living in a large apartment complex, when in reality high population densities can be achieved without high rises. The urban house is not too different than the suburban house shown, and this serves to tell the audience that urban living does not mean giving up on a single-family home.

            At the core of both artefacts is a pro-housing argument. Artefact one’s argument is obvious, while artefact two’s pro-housing argument is more implicit, as it advocates for higher population densities which requires pro-housing policy. This is where the shared purpose ends. Artefact one is a scholarly research paper meant to inform expert audiences on the authors’ findings whereas artefact two is a graphic meant to educate a general audience about the financial benefits of cities compared to suburbs. The difference between audiences has influenced the creators’ decisions to use different genres and media. The authors of artefact one may choose to publish an infographic like artefact two, but it would be their main work. While a scholarly paper could be published using the data sources from artefact two, it would not be the optimal format to inform a general audience. Overall, the main difference between the two artefacts is the level of complexity of the information presented and what audience the creators chose to target.

            Purpose is the most important determining factor of what genre and medium creators choose to use. Purpose itself is built from the target audience, the level of complexity of the argument being made, and the goals/expectations of creators. Artefact one’s target audience is expert, it has a complex argument, and its creators are scholarly researchers working for a government research institution. Its purpose is scholarly, and the authors chose a scholarly genre and appropriate media to communicate their information. Artefact two’s target audience is a general audience, its argument is less complicated, and its creator’s goal is to persuade their audience. All in all, the “what” and “why” of a work determine the “how”.

Note: I chose not to make any major revisions to this project. I made this decision partly out of time constraints, but also due to the fact that the revisions I could have made would have been fairly superficial and not of much value.