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

[theman23]

Originally Posted by lio45

So, in a nutshell, we need to pave over the entire countryside because there are billions of suckers out there who don't live in Canada yet but would like to...?

We do have the second largest available land mass on the planet.

It's really time we try to reconcile our desire for unmitigated population growth with our desire to preserve every single iota of grassland. The status quo is only great for an increasingly small part of the population.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by theman23

We do have the second largest available land mass on the planet.

It's really time we try to reconcile our desire for unmitigated population growth with our desire to preserve every single iota of grassland. The status quo is only great for an increasingly small part of the population.

I don't necessarily disagree, it was just weird to see "Anti-Sprawl Legislation" panned as an awful thing, on an urban affairs forum...

(Completely agree with you on the necessity to choose between growth and preservation. We can't have it all.)

[Innsertnamehere]

As the thread says - anti sprawl legislation isn't problematic if we lifted intensification legislation in big ways, and it doesn't completely cut off lowrise housing supply.

The state of housing development in southern Ontario however is that legislation has effectively cut off lowrise supply and done very little to open up intensification opportunities.

I think there does need to be a recognition that "anti sprawl" is different than what has actually happened in Ontario, where literally any form of greenfield growth is labeled as "sprawl". I look at the latest greenfield areas in the GTA and I really ,really struggle to identify a lot of them as "sprawl". The densities in many of these areas are higher than pre-war residential districts.

People picture sprawl like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3685...!1e3?entry=ttu

while modern greenfield growth looks more like this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4732...!1e3?entry=ttu

I think the focus needs to be much more on minimum greenfield densities than banning greenfield growth entirely, as well as opening up zoning on intensification. A lot of the market will naturally shift to intensification if you simply let it do that. Right now we banned greenfield growth and forced growth down a very permit intensive intensification path which is extremely challenging and expensive. Opening up both will achieve the desired goals of lowering land costs.

The pre-2005 model was "ban intensification, only encourage greenfield". The post 2005 model is "ban greenfield, highly discourage intensification".. which isn't great. The best route forward is likely "encourage intensification, lightly discourage greenfield"

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

while modern greenfield growth looks more like this:

[url]https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4732108,-79.7359122,207a,35y,300.83h,48.16t/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu[/url

I know "sprawl" has many identities, but I do think equating sprawl with only low-density detached homes is an oversimplification. Dense mono-culture housing subdivisions are still "sprawl". They still perpetuate the core issue with modern subdivisions, and these more-dense versions actually seem to intensify the run-off effects (continuing car dependence to employment locations and traffic congestion).

As an "anti-sprawl" person myself, the core issue within a subdivision and the bleed effect it has on local communities and cities, are tied into its mono-culture zoning and zoning segregation. While the linked subdivision has a great main street with apartments in the upper floors along Preserve Drive, these are still simply low-end service retail and the area still relegates major service retail (grocery stores, recreation centres, offices) to the corners of the community surrounded by a surface parking lot.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I know "sprawl" has many identities, but I do think equating sprawl with only low-density detached homes is an oversimplification. Dense mono-culture housing subdivisions are still "sprawl". They still perpetuate the core issue with modern subdivisions, and these more-dense versions actually seem to intensify the run-off effects (continuing car dependence to employment locations and traffic congestion).

As an "anti-sprawl" person myself, the core issue within a subdivision and the bleed effect it has on local communities and cities, are tied into its mono-culture zoning and zoning segregation. While the linked subdivision has a great main street with apartments in the upper floors along Preserve Drive, these are still simply low-end service retail and the area still relegates major service retail (grocery stores, recreation centres, offices) to the corners of the community surrounded by a surface parking lot.

Sure, but how to you really fix that? The reality is that most western nations still rely on the car.

Densities like that pictured in North Oakville (especially after build-out) are actually quite transit supportive and will result in better transit modal shares than you may expect. It's not going to be 80% or anything, but "old school" sprawl is like 2% transit modal shares.. the new stuff will be closer to 15%. The areas are also dense enough that a lot of trips are walkable, if not all. Driving in an area like North Oakville is limited to going to work and major shopping. Old School suburban areas need car trips for the park, schools, local commercial needs, etc.

I live in an old school suburban area and need my car to literally do anything other than walking to a small local park with a playground and basketball court. That really isn't the case in new greenfield areas, parents walk their kids to school, to the dentist, to the barber, walk to the local coffee shop, to the park, etc.

Sure they still typically drive to work (though not always, particularly lower income households in the densest housing forms) and to get groceries. But those trips are actually relatively limited in total percentage of trips. And honestly, areas like North Oakville have their primary commercial areas still surrounded by high-density uses (with more coming here) which means a lot can still walk.

Also - the area is right on Oakville's frequent bus corridors so transit service is surprisingly decent in general. A higher-order transit corridor would be useful in driving down auto modal shares even further, but it is what it is.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Sure, but how to you really fix that? The reality is that most western nations still rely on the car.....

The reality is that most western nations still rely on the car.....to allow them to enjoy the lifestyle they desire.

Finished that for you.

Sad that urban planners churned out of today's universities continue to act like a suburban lifestyle is something forced on Canadians. It is obviously something they want so why should governments continue down the wrong-headed path of trying to thwart that? Not everyone wants to live in a shitty little skybox.

[theman23]

The “shitty little skybox” is also a lot more appealing when there are cost savings associated with the efficiencies of urban living. Instead a condo now costs twice what a SFH was going for when the Places to Grow Act was passed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The reality is that most western nations still rely on the car.....to allow them to enjoy the lifestyle they desire.

Finished that for you.

Sad that urban planners churned out of today's universities continue to act like a suburban lifestyle is something forced on Canadians. It is obviously something they want so why should governments continue down the wrong-headed path of trying to thwart that? Not everyone wants to live in a shitty little skybox.

Not everyone wants to like in a skybox but if they aren't there, people will have no place to live. Don't blame planners for that. Blame governments, who give them no room to work with.

Also, a huge part of the problem in Canada is that we don't have a housing ladder. We have a steep housing pyramid. You go from condo straight to detached house that is double the price of the condo (or more). Having more townhouses and semis in the mix creates a pathway to move out of those condos.

[Metro-One]

The big problem now though is even condos aren’t affordable, and what you get for the price you pay is hilariously off.

A 3 bedroom condo should be the affordable alternative for a family that can’t afford a house and should realistically be no more than 300 000 for a half decent unit, especially in the suburbs.

A 1 bedroom starter unit should still be well under 200 000 for something half decent (if not under 150 000)

But we all know that’s not the case!

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by theman23

The “shitty little skybox” is also a lot more appealing when there are cost savings associated with the efficiencies of urban living. Instead a condo now costs twice what a SFH was going for when the Places to Grow Act was passed.

Couldnt agree more. People are willfully blind to this reality.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The big problem now though is even condos aren’t affordable, and what you get for the price you pay is hilariously off.

!

Because we aren't building enough supply to match demand. SFD prices have gone up faster than condo prices in most cities.

Ultimately, there's no way out of building more.

[goodgrowth]

The main problem with a lot of anti-sprawl legislation is that it has just largely been an unconditional anti-development policy.

It appeseases certain groups and ideologies, many of which not only won't make concessions but actively fight against them (NIMBYism).

[Truenorth00]

Do we have actual statistical correlation between greenbelts and prices? There still seems to be plenty of developable land inside the Greenbelt in the GTA. Seems to me there's much more correlation between travel times and prices. Every minute further from downtown core is probably a drop of $15-20k. Which is why there are so many people happy to see redevelopment of the yellow belt. That creates density where people want it. A townhouse inside TTC coverage will (and should) be more valuable than an SFD in Barrie.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Because we aren't building enough supply to match demand. SFD prices have gone up faster than condo prices in most cities.

Ultimately, there's no way out of building more.

To be more precise:

Ultimately, *if* we want to fix the "problem" (for those who think continuous Landed Gentry Enrichment is a "problem"), then there's no way out of equilibrating supply and demand, for which there's no way out of doing one of the following two (or a mix of both): 1) create more supply somehow, or 2) reduce the yearly intake of FNSs.

[NetMapel]

Feels like B.C. NDP got the right ideas with this recent small interview with the B.C. minister of housing. Land usage in North America is atrocious. You want valuable lands surrounding transit hubs to have some density per TOD philosophy. Empty parking lots and single family houses are incredibly wasteful in the vast majority of a metro region.

• Video Link

[goodgrowth]

That the first inclination for so many is to restrict greenfield development rather than improve it is a red flag on the underlying motives.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

That the first inclination for so many is to restrict greenfield development rather than improve it is a red flag on the underlying motives.

I suspect the hope that was that restricting sprawl would compel densification. But then nothing was done about the Yellow Belt. So we didn't get practical densification. We got shoeboxes in the sky.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I suspect the hope that was that restricting sprawl would compel densification. But then nothing was done about the Yellow Belt. So we didn't get practical densification. We got shoeboxes in the sky.

Right but in this case I'm talking about greenfield development itself. It can be steered into denser mixed-use development than just typical suburbs.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

Right but in this case I'm talking about greenfield development itself. It can be steered into denser mixed-use development than just typical suburbs.

Lots of that is happening in the GTA. I see a ton more townhouses in Greenfield subdivisions now. It's crappy density where they don't build a corner store or coffee shop. But it's denser than past Greenfield.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Lots of that is happening in the GTA. I see a ton more townhouses in Greenfield subdivisions now. It's crappy density where they don't build a corner store or coffee shop. But it's denser than past Greenfield.

Corner stores and coffee shops are the next step in decent greenfield development. Density gets all the attention, but a diversity of uses and accommodation of transit (denser network of evenly spaced arterial streets, fewer bays and cul-de-sacs) is just as important (I might even argue more important).