Ottawa's Official Plan Update

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by MoreTrains

Yeah, I am new, and poorly versed.

So provincial mandates require municipal expansions to go along with the official plan updates? Seems like a stupid thing to do. Why expand prior to critical mass? I mean, Toronto that might makes sense, but in Ottawa, there is so much land there is no way we reach a critical mass in 5-10 years. Seems to me there should be a minimum density rating prior to the expansions.

And there might be development fees that come from greenfield development, but if there is low density those fees only go so far. It is pretty shortsighted, to me at least, to rely on a one time development fee instead of municipal tax collection, that is better in denser areas. Plus, density decreases infrastructure, and less infrastructure means people pay less taxes, because the requirements are spaced out better.

Ill have too read into the OPA 76 process. Perhaps I will answer my own questions. But it still seems to me, that all of the population in Ottawa that lives outside the Greenbelt, could easily live within the Greenbelt, creating a better city perhaps, but I am quite into fantasy evidently...

Not sure what you mean by critical mass but its a supply and demand thing. It takes a while to bring a subdivision on-line. If there is scarcity then prices go up. That in a nutshell is why there has to be adequate greenfield supply.

Development charges do not replace property taxes. In a nutshell greenfield development pays near the full costs for brining infrastructure to them. The development charges are capitalized by the builders back into the home price. The home owner then pays property taxes as per normal. BUT for intensification, the new residents of a new intensification project pay less of a proportion of the costs to upgrade infrastructure to service that project. The difference is covered by other municipal revenue (or grants during the stimulus era) effectively subsidiizing the costs of the new infrastructure. They then pay property taxes as per normal.

Its not about population outside greenbelt living inside the greenbelt. Its about housing type. Municipalities HAVE to provide enough supply per housing type or demand. So there has to be enough supply of singles and inside the greenbelt cannot accommodate that demand, hence suburbs and expansion.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by silvergate

I'm curious what the current reasoning is behind why a city needs to always have potential development lands open. I mean, the Liberal government is supposedly all about going green and such, and this just flies in the face of that logic... Hopefully the new laws will eventually lead to municipalities, not the province, deciding what is best for themselves.

Waterloo Warrior has nailed it. It goes back to post WWII and ensuring there is enough supply to meet the expected demand. If there is not enough supply, pent up demand would increase housing prices.

What is interesting lately is that the demand is falling off faster due to life choices and hence its expected that there will be less required supply. Depending on who you talk to and their point of view of course.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Waterloo Warrior has nailed it. It goes back to post WWII and ensuring there is enough supply to meet the expected demand. If there is not enough supply, pent up demand would increase housing prices.

What is interesting lately is that the demand is falling off faster due to life choices and hence its expected that there will be less required supply. Depending on who you talk to and their point of view of course.

Also it isn't a "closed market" either. If the boundaries are permanently locked in Ottawa and no development takes place, outlying municipalities will take advantage and they will capture a large part of the growth.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Also it isn't a "closed market" either. If the boundaries are permanently locked in Ottawa and no development takes place, outlying municipalities will take advantage and they will capture a large part of the growth.

To some extent, it is. The surrounding municipalities in Ontario are too far away to capture a large amount of growth even if Ottawa closed off its urban borders.. not many are willing to commute 600km a week. Quebec has the language barrier stopping our growth from spilling out there as well.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

To some extent, it is. The surrounding municipalities in Ontario are too far away to capture a large amount of growth even if Ottawa closed off its urban borders.. not many are willing to commute 600km a week. Quebec has the language barrier stopping our growth from spilling out there as well.

And the limited number of interprovincial bridges.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Its not about population outside greenbelt living inside the greenbelt. Its about housing type. Municipalities HAVE to provide enough supply per housing type or demand. So there has to be enough supply of singles and inside the greenbelt cannot accommodate that demand, hence suburbs and expansion.

Why should the supply be regulated?

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why should the supply be regulated?

Its an affordability issue. Low supply + high demand = high price.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z View Post
Its not about population outside greenbelt living inside the greenbelt. Its about housing type. Municipalities HAVE to provide enough supply per housing type or demand. So there has to be enough supply of singles and inside the greenbelt cannot accommodate that demand, hence suburbs and expansion.

Uhuniau
Why should the supply be regulated?

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Its an affordability issue. Low supply + high demand = high price.

Of course it's an affordability issue. If we really want to encourage intensification, then the price of dense spaces (e.g. condos) need to be much lower relative to price of non-dense spaces (sprawling single family houses).

So we should really have a low or nonexistent supply of new land for singles, while encouraging things like Transit Oriented Development.

Our City is making some effort on the latter, but doing poorly on the former.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Of course it's an affordability issue. If we really want to encourage intensification, then the price of dense spaces (e.g. condos) need to be much lower relative to price of non-dense spaces (sprawling single family houses).

So we should really have a low or nonexistent supply of new land for singles, while encouraging things like Transit Oriented Development.

Our City is making some effort on the latter, but doing poorly on the former.

Toronto & Vancouver have very high SFH prices because of this.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Toronto & Vancouver have very high SFH prices because of this.

They also have greater density and transit access. So is it really a bad thing?

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Of course it's an affordability issue. If we really want to encourage intensification, then the price of dense spaces (e.g. condos) need to be much lower relative to price of non-dense spaces (sprawling single family houses).

So we should really have a low or nonexistent supply of new land for singles, while encouraging things like Transit Oriented Development.

Our City is making some effort on the latter, but doing poorly on the former.

Singles and apartments are different markets and are not cross-shopped. The former caters to families with children the latter to single and two-person households. Supply/demand for one does not directly affect the other. The shift we are seeing to apartments continent wide is more of a generational-thing as opposed to any other economic incentives.

In 2009 City Council tried your suggestion and was told no, they can't have less supply than demand. Its Provincial Policy.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Singles and apartments are different markets and are not cross-shopped. The former caters to families with children the latter to single and two-person households. Supply/demand for one does not directly affect the other. The shift we are seeing to apartments continent wide is more of a generational-thing as opposed to any other economic incentives.

In 2009 City Council tried your suggestion and was told no, they can't have less supply than demand. Its Provincial Policy.

Apartments in Ottawa are geared towards couples and single people because they are generally smaller. If developers want to, they can build each unit bigger. But why do that when the province is always adding more developable land and individuals like to live in single family homes?

Perhaps the provincial policy is just at odds with intensification goals then.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Apartments in Ottawa are geared towards couples and single people because they are generally smaller. If developers want to, they can build each unit bigger. But why do that when the province is always adding more developable land and individuals like to live in single family homes?

Perhaps the provincial policy is just at odds with intensification goals then.

I think its the other way around: typically only singles and couples buy apartments hence most are smaller. Again, supply and demand.

Builders built larger apartments before but they didn't sell very well. Some had to even be converted into two smaller units.

Again I don't think the typical young family is cross-shopping larger multi bedroom apartments, even if they are available, with a new single. There's also the want for space, private yard, not having to deal with condo fees. You'd be surprised how important storage is to some folks but we are a consumer society afterall. It's like cross-shopping a minivan vs a coupe. Even if that coupe came in sedan form, it may not be big enough to offset the perceived need for a minivan.

The market won't make the preference switch over night; it will take a bit longer to see if most young families will be asking for larger units within the city rather than in the suburbs.

[Buggys]

Yes, agree that there is currently little if any cross shopping. However, if land availability pushed the cost of singles exorbitantly higher than apartments/condos, perhaps cross shopping may increase sooner.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Yes, agree that there is currently little if any cross shopping. However, if land availability pushed the cost of singles exorbitantly higher than apartments/condos, perhaps cross shopping may increase sooner.

I think cross shopping is happening in Toronto now for this reason.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Yes, agree that there is currently little if any cross shopping. However, if land availability pushed the cost of singles exorbitantly higher than apartments/condos, perhaps cross shopping may increase sooner.

Well, it wouldn't technically be cross-shopping since not many could afford a single; a condo apt would just be the default. If this happened though the prices of apartment condos would also be much higher than what they are now, even higher than what singles are now, so there would be a larger housing affordability issue.

Ideally the market would shift and ask for larger multi-bedroom units while also maintaining some demand for new greenfield singles/units. Overall a balanced housing market is healthier than one that is dominated by one housing type and will keep total housing more affordable.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I think cross shopping is happening in Toronto now for this reason.

If by Toronto you mean the City of Toronto, its built out so there is no or very little supply of new singles. Given the demand if you are at let's say within the 60% income percentile or lower, you can't afford a new single so it's not being cross shopped.

If by Toronto you mean the CMA there are a lot of new greenfield units and I'm not so sure the young family looking to buy a 3,000 sq ft single at the edge of one of the Regional Municipalities is also looking at a 1,000 sq.ft to 1,800 sq.ft apartment condo. They are different mindsets of living. I could grant you there may be a few here and there but I don't see it being the norm.

If anything the urban townhouse is more likely to be considered against a greenfield single.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Dr.Z

Well, it wouldn't technically be cross-shopping since not many could afford a single; a condo apt would just be the default. If this happened though the prices of apartment condos would also be much higher than what they are now, even higher than what singles are now, so there would be a larger housing affordability issue.

Ideally the market would shift and ask for larger multi-bedroom units while also maintaining some demand for new greenfield singles/units. Overall a balanced housing market is healthier than one that is dominated by one housing type and will keep total housing more affordable.

I'm not sure what you're proposing to encourage intensification within the greenbelt then.

[Dr.Z]

Originally Posted by Buggys

I'm not sure what you're proposing to encourage intensification within the greenbelt then.

Why not? Balanced doesn't mean zero on one end. My point really though is that if we tried to artificially shift demand by turning off the singles supply via 0 greenfield lands, as I think was suggested above, the unintended consequence would be an increase in housing price for all units. The singles market will take care of itself, mean while we can still encourage intensification all we want.

[waterloowarrior]

update on the LEAR process
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/agdoc...&itemid=331816