No, young people can’t simply ‘move out of the city’

The Bottom Line

Journalist Anita Katsarska looks past the excuses of housing crisis deniers to explain why wanting an urban life is both a practical necessity and a fundamental right that shouldn't be shamed

Anita Katsarska

The problem is, everyone wants to live in the city: the catchphrase housing crisis deniers whip out when the debate hits a dead end. With the amount of annual reviews exposing the lack of subsidised or affordable homes in Malaga, it’s a wonder that not one denier has called the city council to say: “There’s no crisis, young people just always want to be in the epicentre of urban life.” Yet somehow this challenge of purchasing a home in one’s late 20s, 30s or whenever has infected most of the Western world, including countries with sturdy housing welfare such as those in the Nordic bloc. If the solution was as easy as leaving the metropolis behind and moving to a little house in the prairie, you’d think that everybody would’ve already packed their wagon trains and made the journey out to a brighter and cheaper life.

The case of this pandemic is much less about individual preferences than structural policies and realities. If most establishments and companies simply can’t move out of the city, how can the people on whom they rely do that? Malagueños are lucky to have the Cercanías train, but the more a city’s greater area improves, the more the initial benefits take on a hostile shape.

Transport modernisation has outstretched Malaga-city prices to a rail line radius of one hour, pushing affordable homes to disconnected and isolated villages. Beyond comfort and stashing away commute time, the city counterintuitively represents climate change safety. Air quality might be below par, but people are less likely to worry about a flood washing away their house or a fire putting their precious garden and beloved pet at risk. In reality, people bend. When the home they want lies beyond the circle they have drawn on Idealista, they widen it. As they search, summer arrives and the news fills with daily updates of spreading fires. The quester crosses out municipalities hemmed in by scrubland. Winter and spring arrive and insurance companies get down to work to resolve flooded garages, ground floors and roads, so the quester crosses out Casares, Pizarra, Valle de Abdalajís and even the district of Campanillas.

Let’s say a house is financially covered, how many times does one have the energy to rebuild and recover? Apart from being practical, the city choice could simply stem from a desire to be closer to social interaction, for which nobody, especially someone still figuring it all out, should be shamed. Instead of repeating the lazy refrain that puts the blame on the fundamental right to choice, isn’t it more humane to keep repeating: “Yes, everyone should be able to live where it makes sense for them” until someone hears it?