Quote:
Originally Posted by fusili
I always have issues with studies like this one. They assume that any property that isn't built to full density is developable, thus skewing their perception of how much zoned lane there is for redevelopment. A couple who refuses to sell and wants to live in their home for 20 more years is not a developable property (and there is nothing wrong with that). A 3 storey building that is zoned for a four storey building is not developable. They use building value to land value ratio as a proxy for measuring develop-ability, but that assumes that zoning is in place to allow for redevelopment. A crappy bungalow on an expensive property is redevelopable into a nicer house, but it doesn't add density.
|
You are basically quoting the study here (page 1-5), so I'm not sure you disagree as much as you think. I think we can all agree that it doesn't make sense to interview 300,000 homeowners individually to see if they want to live in their home for 20 more years, and update that on a regular basis. An assumption has to be made; you can then look at the assumption and see if it's optimistic or pessimistic. It seems pretty clear that this is an optimistic assumption of what the total potential capacity will be.
I think the main takeaway is that the MDP is not achievable with current policy and plans; that to meet the MDP target we need ~80K new units in developed areas over 25 years. By looking at the space for redevelopment based on local area plans, we have room for 60K - and only if every single parcel is built to maximum density, which we all know they won't be. By looking at "underutilized" and vacant land, there's ~53K units, and of course not every vacant parcel in the city will be developed and as you (and the report) point out, many if not most of the underutilized parcels will remain at their level of development. And these seem to be two ways of looking at the same target, not overlapping categories where we only need ~40K from each.
The real problem is shown on page 1-6. Even with the highest possible densification assumptions it is not possible to meet (or even get more than 2/3 of) the 25 year target for 33% growth in established communities under current policy and plans hides the challenges with the long range target of 50% of growth in established areas over 60-70 years. If you assume the same absolute growth for the 25 to 65 year time frame (which is very pessimistic - it's a massive drop in relative growth), for the growth in established areas to be 50% of the total, there would need to be 66% growth in established communities over the 2039-2076 time frame. We've already established that the 2039 target cannot be met by building every TOD node and vacant inner city parcel to maximum density. So how the flaming hell will we meet the far more ambitious 2076 target given that we would be starting from a place where we have already developed every TOD node and vacant inner city parcel to maximum density?
If you make a generous assumption and the total capacity far exceeds the need, then you can see if a pared-down more sophisticated assumption still permits you to match your target. But if the generous assumption shows there is no way you will meet your target, then what is the point in refining the assumption?
Prev
And as you mention all I could put on the lot is a more expensive detached house...that's some wacked definition.
It would be one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods in the country. 
For a density of around 11 400/ km2!
Linear Mode
