Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
No. See below.
If the choice is between sprawl and destroying irreplacable, walkable Victorian-era neighbourhoods with a significant amount of multifamily rentals in converted buildings, I'll take the sprawl, please.
|
So basically, instead of making an actual argument, you're just relying on emotional language like calling development "destruction". A tactic indistinguishable from traditional NIMBYs. Obviously neighbourhoods are very much a ship of theseus with continual changes in both human and architectural elements over time. It's very much like how someone opposed to a natural resource extraction project might say something like, "We can't allow the continued
— and pillaging of our
sacred lands in the name of
profits for the
greedy". Notice the emotion triggering terms and lack of actual evidence of harm. Relying on the term "destruction" or "destroying" is the exact same thing.
All I'm hearing so far is, "I appreciate the aesthetics of the current built form of these areas to such a degree that I'm willing to accept significant (albeit hypothetical in this case) harm to prevent changes. But "I personally like something" doesn't make for a persuasive argument for those with different tastes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
Not all parts of the city provide the same benefits for as wide of a cross-section of the population, so I think there is a coherent argument to say that some neighbourhoods are fair game for development and others aren't.
With neighbourhoods like these, which have a density of 127 people/hectare, there isn't any building form that actually ends up housing substantially more people that doesn't destroy the character of the neighbourhood. For comparison, this block has a density of 141 people/hectare. This highrise district has a population density of over 900 people/hectare, but then we're blockbusting neighbourhoods, and I don't think you can argue that doing this to an intact neighbourhood wouldn't result in a destructionof character. |
While I appreciate you finally attempting to make a substantive argument, midrises definitely add a lot more density than you're implying. Assuming the density figure you quote for the lowrise area is actually based on just the houses and doesn't also include nearby mid and highrises, the midrise you showed is hollow with a centre courtyard and lowrise components. There's no way that if you increase the built volume by 166% by replacing a three story structure with an eight story structure like the tallest part of the complex in the second link, that there would only be an 11% increase in habitable space if you used an equal or greater amount of land area. If the criticism is that the structure in the second link isn't very efficient, then ok. I'm not advocating for inefficient midrise designs.
And again, a "change" in an area's character =/= destruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
I don't think the land economics pencils out anywhere downtown to build anything other than highrises.
|
It's true that developers who want to build smaller scale midrise projects have faced barriers but not because of the basic economics. I recommend listening to the 99% invisible podcast episode on Toronto's missing middle to get a better sense of the situation.
That being said, if the economics aren't there for midrises, there's no harm in lifting development restrictions for any projects under the threshold of highrise (generally considered 10 or 12 stories) since none would be build anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
There's a lot to unpack here. For starters, it's almost impossible to empirically measure demand for a product like housing, which is immobile (fixed to place) and not mutually substitutable (every house is unique by virtue of its location and features). Buyers of homes are also infinitely heterogeneous in their wants and needs, and place a different value on all these infinitely heterogeneous homes. It's not the same as a dispassionate purchase for a good like a vacuum cleaner or tea towels, where my personal values and lifestyle preferences don't play much of a role in what I buy and, subsequently, the price these goods can command.
Housing is also an asset, and behaves like an asset. When prices are going up, like they do for stocks, people rush in to buy under an assumption of future price gains. When prices for homes go down, there are few buyers and people don't rush in hunting for bargains. Demand is correlated but definitely not caused by population growth, since people can buy as many homes as they want and choose to leave them empty. Indeed, during a period of demand growth and price growth, there is a perverse incentive to do so because of an expectation of asset appreciation.
|
Demand for housing is not the same thing as demand for investment opportunities. Yes, demand for housing can be fairly easily quantified. You simply need to look at the vacancy rate, the rate of population growth, average household sizes, and the number of units coming to the market. Yes prices are also affected by investors but to a much lower extent. People sometimes speculate that investors are leaving properties empty but I haven't seen any evidence that this is true to any significant degree. Most investors rent out the properties for additional income and do not simply leave them vacant to capture the expected appreciation. Not in small part because that would be very costly given the tax and condo fees they'd be paying.
Regardless, price fluctuations aren't particularly important if the supply of homes is sufficient to house everyone. You can simply apply rent control to some units to help those with low incomes if there are enough homes, but there's little you can do besides build more if there's simply not enough.
But I should be very clear. My argument isn't that these specific areas need to allow redevelopment to solve the housing crisis or that doing so will single-handedly solve it. Every little bit helps, but my argument is that these areas (and the city as a whole) would be improved by allowing the development because many more people would be able to enjoy these beautiful, walkable areas close to downtown and if done well, development would actually be an improvement. The architecture may not be as traditional or cohesive, but the eclectic mix would be more interesting and vibrant. While areas like the one in your first link are very nice, I personally don't find it attractive to have such low-slung, bucolic areas dominate the inner city of a major metropolis. So both of our positions are centered in our subjective aesthetic taste. I just think there are objective reasons to support my position as well.
But regardless, I value hearing other perspectives!
Prev
Linear Mode
