Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
The main benefit is that more units will be built. Sometimes these projects pencil when they wouldn't with traditional layouts.
And more supply (all kinds) means more affordability as units age over time, meaning both the new units and the existing ones. (More vs. the non-building alternative)
A city like Seattle has an unfathomably large backlog of proposed but unbuilt projects. Trying to make more of these pencil is crucial.
|
I understand the theory. Essentially, 'supply and demand'.
The issue from my perspective is simply one of the benefit (in this particular niche area) is that the argued for benefit appears oversold.
That is to say, using Seattle as example, so far its triggered only a handful of projects.
Those typically have a above-average pricing; and the Seattle market writ large doesn't show any price declines in the post approval period.
One can always argue 'it would have been worse but for" But counter-factuals by their nature are near impossible to prove.
Which again, is not an argument against single-egress, per se, but just an argument that I think the benefit is oversold in terms of affordability in the market.
***
I would argue that in housing markets were affordability is most taxed, the problem is as a much excess demand, as it is under supply.
That can be from unreasonably fast population growth, an overly frothed investor market of people/builders buying investor-box condos, or second houses as investments or assemblies that are years away from being built.
Its also a result of builders (and others) buying up less 'entitled' land, and paying a price for it based on an assumption of upzoning, thus forcing the price of all land higher, which in turn drives the retail price of housing higher.
Then all of that, is in turn compounded on in many markets by wages not keeping pace with the increased cost of housing.
In Canada, writ-large, I argued that the inordinate number of foreign students ( a record, and most of that surge in diploma-mills rather than top tier programs like medicine and engineering) along with temporary foreign workers was both putting too much pressure on the housing market and acting as wage suppressant.
Initially, this view wasn't not well received. But it took hold, and with the numbers of temporary residents now declining, so are rents and housing prices.
It was simply the fastest, easiest way to take pressure off an over-heated market.
That has not fully resolved the housing pressures in Toronto in particular yet, because its dropped market pricing by 10% for the most part for rent, and a bit over double that on the ownership side.
Vancouver's rent decline is a bit larger, but its housing ownership price decline is a bit smaller. To get the pricing ratios to compare to historic norms (when compared to incomes) will require further adjustment.
For further clarity, the ratio of household income to price in Vancouver has roughly doubled in the last 20 years, with recently declines knocking that back to maybe 85%
A price reduction on that order is not coming and would create mass bankruptcy.
But there is a need to get numbers down further, while wages must rise, particularly near the entry levels in order to whittle down the ratio spike to 50% or less.
***
At the end of the day, I'm pro 'missing middle', and removing unreasonable barriers to gentle intensification; providing that they don't compromise safety.
But I think we need a measure of honesty that most of the contemplated measures, certainly on their own, and probably together won't make all that large a dent in the problem.
I'd prefer to see a bit more effort on higher impact solutions.
Prev
Linear Mode
