Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse
There's a big difference between saying "who should be living in the 905" vs "who otherwise would be living in the 905." The latter I would agree with but the former I would 100% disagree with. Yes it tends to be more expensive to re-develop and densify existing built areas compared to developing greenfields. But often the things that are cheaper are not the things that are better and this is most certainly one of those cases. The problem is that a lot of north american cities developed with overly low density (in the last century at least) and this now needs to be retrofitted - not only for the sake of the design and aesthetics of the city, but for the practical aspects of city function such as avoiding the costs of serving low density areas with infrastructure and allowing people to access jobs and amenities without long wasteful drives. The higher prices is what prompts enough construction to be built in central areas to house the increasing population. That's not the problem - that's the solution. That's how you attract developers to provide more supply. Yes higher prices is not fun, but problems (and the process of solving them) have a cost and it's obviously a cost we can afford because if not, you just see rising homelessness instead of rising prices.
Complaining about the cost associated with correcting this type of problem is like complaining about the bother of cleaning up after a natural disaster. Sure if you don't bother cleaning it up you'll save yourself some effort but then you have the equal or greater problem of it not getting cleaned up. In the case of the greenbelt that was created to clean up the problem of increasing suburban sprawl, fixing a major problem of accommodating people within the existing urban form is expensive but if we don't pay for it we'll have all the associated problems of suburban sprawl. The only solution that would have truly avoided all this would have been to have built more densely in the first place, ie not have so much land devoted to detached SFH between downtown and the greenbelt. Then we'd still be building on greenfield but not near reaching the greenbelt boundary still. After all, if the city proper of Toronto had the density about 3/4 of Brooklyn, it could house the entire population of the GTA.
|
I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. I think we should be intensifying and fast-tracking laneway housing within the 416 but also allowing for wealthy estate home, middle class SFH subdivision development in the 905 by loosening restrictions on the greenbelt in non productive agricultural areas , industrial lands that haven't been developed, anywhere that the water table wouldn't get affected. And of course, I also believe the province should greenlight midrise and high density development all along major arterials like Major Mackenzie or Teston etc.
If no estate homes are permitted, big luxury tract homes could very quickly become overvalued. If big luxury tract homes are not permitted, you could very well see medium size tract homes become overvalued and selling for millions of dollars. If medium size tract homes are not allowed you could very well see new townhomes values inflate to millions of dollars creating an even more terrifying housing market. etc etc
I'd also argue it's the speculation and red tape adding 200k to the cost of a new SFH in the suburbs that caused so many suburban people to start considering living in the city close to work. And this made my rental apartment hunting a complete nightmare.
I could very well be homeless myself if I didnt get lucky with finding my basement suite.
I think a healthy real estate market should have lots of supply with as many different housing options as possible (big acreage estate homes, subdivision homes, townhomes, stacked townhomes and midrise/highrises all along the arterials throughout the GTHA that separate these low density areas)
And of course, the province should step in and remove restrictions that prevent the building of basement suites/condos. This, in my opinion, might be the biggest difference maker in ending involuntary homelessness in addition to some form of a negative income tax or UBI.
I believe part all middle class greenfield SFH development should be within close proximity of designated transit and high density commercial arterials. The key for this is not red tape on the actual SFH development but the government should up-zone dozens of arterials in the 905 for midrise and high rise mixed use development so that they will eventually become transit corridors accessible to everyone. If the government overrides local planning and NIMBYs by greenlighting for high density mixed use arterials in suburban areas (for example 12-20 stories all along Teston Road ) people in a suburban SFH enclave while enjoying the options of an urban GTHA without the condo fees or high prices.
If you are not building all types of housing you end up with markets and homelessness like in Vancouver, London, SF etc.
Prev
Linear Mode
