^ Doesn't do nothing but increase costs. Also decreases number of units, appeases neighbors' NIMBY parking worries, and burns valuable/rare land where the city allows more than a detached single family home. Plus, as a policy (which Vancouver surely has), underbuilding viz demand drives up property values city-wide, making incumbents rich and fueling the speculator market (which is now global in scale thanks the predictability of these policies), locks younger people out, and guarantees developer profits. Almost everyone on this site is pro-developer, but think about it, if you could build citywide and not just on 20-25% of the city's territory, so many more people would get in that profits would decrease. Even in hyper-regulated Vancouver, the incumbent players have every incentive to ally with neighbors, planners and captured politicians in a common plan to keep the vast majority of the city zoned as single family homes. Shouldn't be that way, not only as a matter of equity, but as a matter of public policy.
__________________
"Yes, we destroyed the planet. But in one brief, beautiful moment, we created tremendous value for shareholders."
|