Most lower- and moderate-income households spend more on housing and transportation than considered affordable. When families cannot afford food or healthcare, the real reason is generally excessive housing and transport cost burdens. This harms families and communities. As a result, there is considerable interest in tools to help understand unaffordability problems and evaluate potential solutions. The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey (IHAS) rates regional housing affordability using Median Multiples (the ratio of median house prices to wages), and uses the results to advocate for urban expansion. It is heavily promoted and receives significant media attention. This study critically evaluates the IHAS methods and recommendations. It identifies significant problems.

The Survey’s analysis methods exaggerate the affordability of urban-fringe housing, and the unaffordability of compact urban infill. It blames housing unaffordability on urban containment regulations although they are uncommon and less costly than regulations limiting affordable infill. It ignores many sprawl costs and Smart Growth benefits. The IHAS fails to reflect professional standards: its analysis methods do not reflect current best practices, it misrepresents key research, is not transparent, and lacks peer review. This critique indicates that the IHAS is propaganda, intended to support a political agenda rather than provide objective guidance. Although the IHAS information may be useful, it is important that users understand its biases.