As long as income has no connection to housing in geographically constrained area, housing prices will always move independently of what is locally needed to support the range of workers.
The crazy situation in the City of Vancouver is a combination of:
- Vancouver's amenity paradox (the nicer you make the place, the more people want to live there.)
- Socio-economic filtering (keeping up with the Joneses, i.e. neighbourhoods homogenizes as prices go up pushing prices nearby up from the spill over. The idea that the 'west side' starts at Boundary)
- Speculation of property to park or flip as a commodity. (Nationality is irrelevant)
- City planning that protects property value over diversity of uses. (and Public interest?)
First, I would benchmark the land-values as community assets and tax the crap out of anything that goes beyond inflation based indices. People should be able to build equity in their home, but housing is not a typical commodity and should not be treated as such.
Secondly, I would create rental housing tied to 30% income and create categories for different rent-based incomes. This way you would be able target the developments to the need available. For example, if 10% of the rental stock is class C rents, then drop taxes on buildings the accommodate more class C. Targeting income is more effective in maintaining the right balance of housing. People of similar incomes should be competing for housing. The current model is the top earners push out everyone. This should also be applied to small business. A notary has a different financial reality than an artist. (Check out the 401 Building in Toronto that mixes artists and commerce providing a diversity of tenants with different financial realities - and daycare)
Thirdly, I would pre-zone all arterials and collectors to multi-unit, but change the code to make them based on form not use. This would allow for better flexibility of developers to meet community preferences while allowing better flexibility in demand changes over time. Three square blocks of mid-size can provide the density of a few towers near a station. (I still like the towers near the station.
)
Finally, I would drop parking requirements. If that is not tenable then drop the requirements for any building within 500m of a bus stop and 750m of a rapid transit stop. The developers have a strong incentive to build what they think the market will bear. The cost of surplus parking feeds into the cost of units. With all the current and planned mobility options, it is silly to building too much parking while housing is so unaffordable.