Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[MolsonExport]

Try building highrises in the suburbs of most large American cities. It is nearly impossible, given the zoning, by-laws, and incredible power given to the NIMBYs. By American standards, Ontario cities are very much pro-development in terms of densification.


I won't waste time discussing the benefits of the greenbelt. These are self-evident, and easily found, except for those with an a priori conviction that the greenbelt is a bad idea.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Try building highrises in the suburbs of most large American cities. It is nearly impossible, given the zoning, by-laws, and incredible power given to the NIMBYs. By American standards, Ontario cities are very much pro-development in terms of densification.


I won't waste time discussing the benefits of the greenbelt. These are self-evident, and easily found, except for those with an a priori conviction that the greenbelt is a bad idea.

Right but on the flip side, apart from a small number of metros, American cities provide ample land that can easily be developed within a reasonable timeframe. We may see the American development patterns as sprawly, unsustainable, and undesirable, but the fact is they provide their residents with the opportunity to achieve the life they want at a very reasonable price point. The vast majority of Americans want a large lot with a backyard and a 2-car garage and for the most part they can get it without taking on crippling amounts of mortgage debt. As much as we may not like to admit it, Canadian preferences are probably not that different, but are far more unachievable.

Most of us are in favour of intensification opportunities in all areas, including suburbs. However promoting intensification does not absolve one of their sins elsewhere.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Try building highrises in the suburbs of most large American cities. It is nearly impossible, given the zoning, by-laws, and incredible power given to the NIMBYs. By American standards, Ontario cities are very much pro-development in terms of densification.


I won't waste time discussing the benefits of the greenbelt. These are self-evident, and easily found, except for those with an a priori conviction that the greenbelt is a bad idea.

no doubt the greenbelt has environmental benefits, I don't think people debate that. They debate whether the tradeoffs for it are worth it.

The "greenbelt" in Toronto has been drawn far enough out that it's not really impacting growth yet - but the concept as a whole eventually becomes problematic.

Intensification is definitely good - it's not a good idea to spread people around as much as possible - but the policies and regulations in place in the GTA arguably go too far. At a certain point we have to acknowledge that the planning framework in the GTA is causing the huge run up in costs of low-rise housing. And ultimately, people have a strong desire for low-rise housing, which means they do things like hyper commute or move metros, running up housing prices across the province.

Places like Windsor, London, etc have seen house prices skyrocket in the last 4 years as remote workers flee the high housing costs of the GTA. Many would probably have rather stayed in the GTA, if it were not for a lack of affordable ground related housing.

The policy framework in the GTA means that the vast majority of new housing stock has to come through high-rise apartments. Which is all well and good for those who like that lifestyle or who live alone or as a couple, but that housing form is extremely expensive to build on a per square foot basis, meaning that most households can only afford 400-800 square feet of living space.

People look at housing affordability in the GTA - a lot of has to do with the massive decline in ground-related housing completions which has occurred in the last 20 years as a result of policies like the Greenbelt and Places to Grow. If you want more housing than an 800sf 2-bedroom condo with maybe 1 parking space and a storage locker in your future and for your children - something has to change.

Things like "missing middle" help as they are slightly cheaper to build - perhaps the range of affordability shifts to 600-1,000sf instead, and things like large outdoor spaces and parking become easier to provide as well. So that helps, but missing middle is difficult to deliver at a large scale in existing urban areas.

The reality is that we need new greenfield land to deliver the types of housing most people want.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I won't waste time discussing the benefits of the greenbelt. These are self-evident, and easily found, except for those with an a priori conviction that the greenbelt is a bad idea.

If it's so self-evident, it should be simple to explain. Please elaborate.

[MolsonExport]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenb...lden_Horseshoe)
https://www.greenbelt.ca/learn

For starters, a large part of the best farmland in Canada lies in the Greenbelt and under the GTA.



The above Figure shows the CLI classifications and heat units for southern Ontario. It is important to remember that prime agricultural lands, Classes 1, 2, and 3 and specialty croplands, are a very limited resource in Canada. Only 5% of the Canadian land mass is made up of prime land. Only 0.5% of it is Class 1. The Central Ontario Zone is fortunate to contain a significant portion of this very limited resource. Unfortunately, it occurs in one of the fastest-growing regions of the country.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenb...lden_Horseshoe)
https://www.greenbelt.ca/learn

For starters, a large part of the best farmland in Canada lies in the Greenbelt and under the GTA.

The above Figure shows the CLI classifications and heat units for southern Ontario. It is important to remember that prime agricultural lands, Classes 1, 2, and 3 and specialty croplands, are a very limited resource in Canada. Only 5% of the Canadian land mass is made up of prime land. Only 0.5% of it is Class 1. The Central Ontario Zone is fortunate to contain a significant portion of this very limited resource. Unfortunately, it occurs in one of the fastest-growing regions of the country.

What is the protected farmland being used for right now?

What would happen if that farmland were developed into neighbourhoods for people to live in?

[MolsonExport]

there is this thing called Google that allows you to find answers to many things.

You remind me of a 'departed' forumer.

[bolognium]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The reality is that we need new greenfield land to deliver the types of housing most people want.

I'm curious what the demand for greenfield SFHs would look like if people actually had to pay the true costs of it. Would people still jump at suburban living if property taxes were calculated based on lot size, frontage, how far out and costly it is to service, etc? Or if private automobile ownership wasn't heavily subsidized?

People might want that type of housing right now, but what if it wasn't deeply subsidized by denser areas? If property taxes actually took into account the cost to service these lands and maintain those services (without growth paying for growth Ponzi schemes), would they still be as attractive? If highway infrastructure wasn't heavily subsidized and gas taxes were raised to pay for the roads people use for their super-commutes, would people still want to drive 100km or more a day?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

there is this thing called Google that allows you to find answers to many things.

You remind me of a 'departed' forumer.

I was trying to have a civil conversation with someone else who disagrees with me. You inserted yourself into that conversation to make a bold statement. Now that I'm asking you to defend that statement by asking a few followup questions about it, you're trying to make it personal (despite knowing nothing about me).

In case you're interested in having a civil conversation, here are the questions I asked you previously:

1. What is the protected farmland being used for right now?

2. What do you think would happen if that farmland were developed into neighbourhoods for people to live in?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The policy framework in the GTA means that the vast majority of new housing stock has to come through high-rise apartments. Which is all well and good for those who like that lifestyle or who live alone or as a couple, but that housing form is extremely expensive to build on a per square foot basis, meaning that most households can only afford 400-800 square feet of living space.
...

Things like "missing middle" help as they are slightly cheaper to build - perhaps the range of affordability shifts to 600-1,000sf instead, and things like large outdoor spaces and parking become easier to provide as well. So that helps, but missing middle is difficult to deliver at a large scale in existing urban areas.

The reality is that we need new greenfield land to deliver the types of housing most people want.

Agreed that missing middle - and by that I mean low-rise, wood-framed, small multi-unit housing within an existing single family home lot - isn't going to deliver a lot of 2 and 3 BR units at scale, and probably not at a level that's affordable.

But what are the psf buildable costs of building, let's say, a 1,000 ft2 3BR apartment in an American style 5-over-1 wood-framed apartment building, assuming that you can assemble SFH lots in the GTA to do this as of right?

Do you know anyone who has done a mock pro forma on something like this?

[hipster duck]

Another exercise I'd like to see is how many more units could be squeezed into a subdivision masterplan if they shrunk the road allowance from whatever it typically is - 66 feet? - to something similar to what you find in Old Toronto.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by bolognium

I'm curious what the demand for greenfield SFHs would look like if people actually had to pay the true costs of it. Would people still jump at suburban living if property taxes were calculated based on lot size, frontage, how far out and costly it is to service, etc? Or if private automobile ownership wasn't heavily subsidized?

People might want that type of housing right now, but what if it wasn't deeply subsidized by denser areas? If property taxes actually took into account the cost to service these lands and maintain those services (without growth paying for growth Ponzi schemes), would they still be as attractive? If highway infrastructure wasn't heavily subsidized and gas taxes were raised to pay for the roads people use for their super-commutes, would people still want to drive 100km or more a day?

I've long been advocating for property tax calculation methods to be reformed so that people pay their true cost to the municipality. Agree with you there.

Not so sure I agree about the gas tax - it's something I'd have to think about a bit more.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Try building highrises in the suburbs of most large American cities. It is nearly impossible, given the zoning, by-laws, and incredible power given to the NIMBYs. By American standards, Ontario cities are very much pro-development in terms of densification.


I won't waste time discussing the benefits of the greenbelt. These are self-evident, and easily found, except for those with an a priori conviction that the greenbelt is a bad idea.

Do you live in a highrise?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Do you live in a highrise?

Currently? No I do not. But for many years (probably 40% of my life) I did, and I will probably do so again when I retire and move to a more interesting and larger city. I have two kids + wife, and I currently live in a smallish city. Looming over my backyard are 3 highrises, with more to come. These weren't there when I bought my current home. Regardless of my housing situation, it does not preclude me from being able to make a comment, so I am not quite sure what you are getting at.

[Build.It]

.

[SignalHillHiker]

Jesus.





"Gem (bean)" Dying. Not even sure you can buy exterior paint that muted here. White picket fences?

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I won't waste time discussing the benefits of the greenbelt. These are self-evident, and easily found, except for those with an a priori conviction that the greenbelt is a bad idea.

I was curious what a piori meant so decided to look it up - "relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience."

I am a construction professional in the GTA who deals with NIMBYs, cities and consultants every day. You are a biology professor in London. Yet according to you I'm the one who is being theoretical.

[niwell]

Molson isn’t a biology prof…

There are other people here who have significant experience with provincial and municipal policy, not to mention the development industry. I’ve been in the same room in both official and unofficial capacity with reps from BILD and OHBA on more than a few occasions - though to be fair it was a while back. I deal with municipalities and various advocacy groups very often.

I have a feeling I know who this former forumer is now.

[lio45]

The modern English word “prior” is derived from the same root. “A priori” in practice means “at first sight”, “before digging into the topic”, “prior to digging into the topic”.

I disagree with Molson on that one, to me, the greenbelt is a priori a bad idea since it’s obviously not close to being an ALR of the best and most productive Southern Ontario farmland, it’s just a ring around Toronto that can and does get leapfrogged by sprawl.

The sprawl that leapfrogs the greenbelt can sometimes destroy even better agricultural land (than it would inside the greenbelt).

Quebec has “green zoning” for agricultural land, in the entirety of the province, if you want to build on it you have to try to get it un-zoned green, and it’s likely going to be no. It’s a bit like a giant ALR province-wide, except it’s likely easier to get land out of it than it is for BC’s ALR.

Being used to that system — which protects agricultural land, rather than a ring of land around a city regardless of agricultural value — I find it better than a greenbelt. Does Ontario have something equivalent? Most of Southern Ontario should be zoned “green”, like an ALR, no construction, Ag use only. No need for a greenbelt then.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by lio45

\

Being used to that system — which protects agricultural land, rather than a ring of land around a city regardless of agricultural value — I find it better than a greenbelt. Does Ontario have something equivalent? Most of Southern Ontario should be zoned “green”, like an ALR, no construction, Ag use only. No need for a greenbelt then.

As has been described in this thread a bunch of times (not trying to be snarky - just not claiming first credit here!) the real limiter to land in Southern Ontario is Places to Grow, to a lesser extent the Provincial Policy Statement and trickle-down polices reflected in municipal Official Plans, not the Greenbelt. Land outside the designated Greenbelt areas is far from a free for all. There's no provincial ALR however individual municipalities designate "settlement lands" and have provisions for designation of various agricultural lands which will be reflected in the Official Plan that is required to conform to Provincial policy and receive Provincial approval. Specifics of agricultural designation varies from municipality to municipality. In theory municipalities have 25 years worth of developable land designated, however this isn't really the case in some instances. Recent decisions to expand the urban growth boundary in some municipalities were overturned as part of the fiasco to remove some lands from the Greenbelt in a manner that wasn't exactly above board and arguably had little to do with actually providing housing.

If a municipality wanted to designate prime agricultural land for settlement and there was a better option, the answer from the Province would also likely be "no". If the Province were to shrink the Greenbelt to only reflect environmentally significant lands (Oak Ridges Moraine, Niagara Escarpment etc.) it would still be pretty substantial and have little effect on the supply of land for many years.

From the Provincial Policy Statement (2020):

2.3 Agriculture

2.3.1 Prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, and 3 lands, and any associated Class 4 through 7 lands within the prime agricultural area, in this order of priority.

2.3.2 Planning authorities shall designate prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province, as amended from time to time. Planning authorities are encouraged to use an agricultural system approach to maintain and enhance the geographic continuity of the agricultural land base and the functional and economic connections to the agri-food network.