Zoning Reform Ideas

[allengeorge]

Obviously we have a crisis in housing prices, but the price of a detached home is not it. People living in Toronto should not expect to live in a detached single family house. The city is too big. Tens of thousands of people move to Toronto every year, and no more single family detached houses will ever be built within the confines of the city of Toronto, so no matter what else happens in our housing market, those are never going to get cheaper.

I agree. Unfortunately that’s the housing stock in Toronto that’s best suited for families. I would love to see more ground-related housing like multiplexes, semis, towns and so on, but that’s basically unviable through zoning or planning issues in a lot of the city.

 

[evandyk]

Yeah, I'm one of those people raising a kid in an apartment, and it is not easy at all to find family-sized housing anywhere close to downtown. The apartments are all too small to even park a stroller in the entranceway. We literally bought the first apartment we saw that had a big entranceway just for that reason.

 

[afransen]

It ought to be more economical per sqft to build larger, more family friendly, units in low rise multiplexes. It's not going to come from condos that are selling for $1500 psf.

 

[Northern Light]

Column in today's Globe from a retired York U Prof takes aim the proposed zoning reforms and says supply (or lack of) is only a small part of the problem.

Opinion: A shortage of homes isn’t the main reason house prices keep rising

The idea that Ontario hasn’t built enough homes for a growing population isn’t backed by data

www.theglobeandmail.com

The piece is behind the paywall at time of posting,

Key excerpts:

"Demand is growing and prices are rising, so the explanation must be that supply is not keeping up.

Unfortunately, the data do not support this narrative. The 2021 Census reported that from 2011 to 2021, Ontario’s population grew by 10.7 per cent and the number of occupied dwellings grew by 12.5 per cent. The same has been true for the past 30 years. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, dwellings grew much faster than population, but the fact remains that new construction is still outpacing population growth. Many of the new units are high-rise condos, whereas many buyers want ground-oriented units. The problem is not so much the number of units being built as the type of unit."

He then provides a brief explainer on why large cities naturally drive inordinate price growth before moving on to say:

We must also look at the demand side, though the report offers no analysis of demand. Demand for home-buying increases if mortgage interest rates fall. This past decade, interest rates began at historical lows, drifted downward slightly until 2017, rose slightly until 2020 and then dropped sharply. They have never been so low. House price increases are part of the worldwide problem of asset price inflation caused by ultralow interest rates.

However, the data on population growth, income growth and falling interest rates cannot explain why demand has remained so strong in the face of such high prices. This is because demand is also influenced by expectations about future prices – if you expect prices to keep increasing, you are willing to pay more today. Suppose you bought an $800,000 house with an $80,000 down payment. If prices went up 10 per cent in the next year, your home equity would have doubled.

He then concludes his piece (my paraphrase) by agreeing w/the need for more 'missing middle' and relaxed zoning in SFH areas; but simply contends this will only make a difference at the margins, if we don't address the above; and that what he called 'wholesale deregulation' of planning as recommended by the provincial task force was not needed nor appropriate.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It's been well analyzed, but shrinking household sizes means 1 new person needs more than a proportionate amount of new units, particularly since our shift away from sprawl to intensification means new units are much smaller and hold even fewer people than the types of units we built 15 years ago.

If housing was truly keeping up with demand, real affordability declines wouldn't be occurring at the scale they are.

I mean I don't get how you can look at a real estate market where most houses get 6-10 bids within the first 2 days of listing as not being in a shortage of supply. That takes some extreme level of delusion - either we cut demand or increase supply to level that playing field, or some combination of the two.

Our chosen planning policy regime naturally means that real declines in affordability in many product types are inevitable, particularly detached housing. That product is naturally going to become a true luxury product in the coming decades unless we decide to start building subdivisions en mass again.

Price increases can happen from a demand side from increased incomes, cheaper borrowing costs, etc., all of which have happened in the last 2 years (average incomes jumped, borrowing costs plummeted), without actually impacting real affordability.

The question is why many feel real affordability is now being impacted. I genuinely believe our attempts to distort market demand with planning policy, pushing people away from the in-demand detached housing stock (which is what an estimated 60% of buyers would buy in an ideal condition) is creating extreme distortions in the market which are creating such a heightened sense of unaffordability. Then you have the Liberal's pushing immigration levels to their maximum, driving up demand even further, on top of the national level reversal of growth trends pushing growth into Ontario from where it was going in previous decades out to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and you get the problem we are in.

It doesn't mean that we have to start sprawling again to fix it per se, the problem is that we've made is so that the only new supply we are allowed to build is extremely expensive concrete high rise construction with underground parking.. which is just extremely expensive. We have to find a way to build housing that is affordable per square foot again - which is what missing middle can do so well. Stick construction. low structural requirements, surface parking areas if it's provided at all, etc.

The regulatory environment needs to change to allow more low cost forms of construction. Whether that is missing middle, or making the US-style 5 over 1 apartment blocks more possible, or whatever, we need a way to construct a new unit for less than $1,000 a foot, and find a way to ensure that large amounts of residential floor space, regardless of unit numbers, is delivered every year.

 

[Northern Light]

It's been well analyzed, but shrinking household sizes means 1 new person needs more than a proportionate amount of new units, particularly since our shift away from sprawl to intensification means new units are much smaller and hold even fewer people than the types of units we built 15 years ago.

If housing was truly keeping up with demand, real affordability declines wouldn't be occurring at the scale they are.

I mean I don't get how you can look at a real estate market where most houses get 6-10 bids within the first 2 days of listing as not being in a shortage of supply. That takes some extreme level of delusion - either we cut demand or increase supply to level that playing field, or some combination of the two.

Our chosen planning policy regime naturally means that real declines in affordability in many product types are inevitable, particularly detached housing. That product is naturally going to become a true luxury product in the coming decades unless we decide to start building subdivisions en mass again.

Price increases can happen from a demand side from increased incomes, cheaper borrowing costs, etc., all of which have happened in the last 2 years (average incomes jumped, borrowing costs plummeted), without actually impacting real affordability. Then you have the Liberal's pushing immigration levels to their maximum, driving up demand even further, on top of the national level reversal of growth trends pushing growth into Ontario from where it was going in previous decades out to Alberta and Saskatchewan, and you get the problem we are in.

The question is why many feel real affordability is now being impacted. I genuinely believe our attempts to distort market demand with planning policy, pushing people away from the in-demand detached housing stock (which is what an estimated 60% of buyers would buy in an ideal condition) is creating extreme distortions in the market which are creating such a heightened sense of unaffordability.

It doesn't mean that we have to start sprawling again to fix it per se, the problem is that we've made is so that the only new supply we are allowed to build is extremely expensive concrete high rise construction with underground parking.. which is just extremely expensive. We have to find a way to build housing that is affordable per square foot again - which is what missing middle can do so well. Stick construction. low structural requirements, surface parking areas if it's provided at all, etc.

The regulatory environment needs to change to allow more low cost forms of construction. Whether that is missing middle, or making the US-style 5 over 1 apartment blocks more possible, or whatever, we need a way to construct a new unit for less than $1,000 a foot, and find a way to ensure that large amounts of residential floor space, regardless of unit numbers, is delivered every year.

I agree with the planning ideas you're subscribing to above; I also concur that shrinking household size is a demand factor under-weighted by some.

That said, I also believe the role of investor-owned vacant units is playing a role, that inordinately low borrowing costs and the financialization of housing (it becoming as much or more about investment than a place to live); and a growing population are all critical issues. Additionally there's the problem that income growth is not remotely even, that people making above median-incomes have generally seen growth at or above inflation; while those with below-median incomes have tended to see wages contract relative to inflation.

As a last note, the problem with out national inflation statistic, which grossly under-weights housing costs (as do the sub-national numbers) makes it just a bit more challenging to show all of the above and cleanly discuss solutions; good data is a great thing.

 

[AlbertC]

Affordable housing task force report puts spotlight on need for more density in established areas such as the Beach​

March 16, 2022

Affordable housing task force report puts spotlight on need for more density in established areas such as the Beach – Beach Metro Community News

By AHMED DIRIE A provincial task force has recommended more aggressive residential developments that would bypass laws that protect the “character” of neighbourhoods across Ontario, and supplant single-family homes as their backbone, in an effort to deal with the affordable housing crisis. The...

beachmetro.com

 

[dusk]

Affordable housing task force report puts spotlight on need for more density in established areas such as the Beach​

March 16, 2022

Affordable housing task force report puts spotlight on need for more density in established areas such as the Beach – Beach Metro Community News

By AHMED DIRIE A provincial task force has recommended more aggressive residential developments that would bypass laws that protect the “character” of neighbourhoods across Ontario, and supplant single-family homes as their backbone, in an effort to deal with the affordable housing crisis. The...

beachmetro.com

I have to laugh at this quote from the article:

I know that there’s a lot of people in the Beaches who are going to say ‘We love the small town feel of our neighbourhood’,” said Berns-McGown. “But we’re going to actually need to have increased density. We’re just going to have to figure that piece out. There are going to need to be some adjustments made. But I think overall, in part because the folks who live here are very progressive minded, they do think it’s important to house their neighbours. And they don’t want unhoused people in parks because that’s just cruel.”

Families who make $200k can't afford a home. We're way beyond people sleeping in parks. It's almost comical how far off people are regarding the scale of the issue.

 

[Towered]

I have to laugh at this quote from the article:

I know that there’s a lot of people in the Beaches who are going to say ‘We love the small town feel of our neighbourhood’,” said Berns-McGown. “But we’re going to actually need to have increased density. We’re just going to have to figure that piece out. There are going to need to be some adjustments made. But I think overall, in part because the folks who live here are very progressive minded, they do think it’s important to house their neighbours. And they don’t want unhoused people in parks because that’s just cruel.”

Families who make $200k can't afford a home. We're way beyond people sleeping in parks. It's almost comical how far off people are regarding the scale of the issue.

I can already hear the moneyed gentry of the Beaches sharpening their pitchforks - they will not stand for this outrage!

 

[Northern Light]

I can already hear the moneyed gentry of the Beaches sharpening their pitchforks - they will not stand for this outrage!

She's not running again..............; but she also has very little say on this anyway, being a provincial politician and in the opposition.

 

[Northern Light]

I have to laugh at this quote from the article:

I know that there’s a lot of people in the Beaches who are going to say ‘We love the small town feel of our neighbourhood’,” said Berns-McGown. “But we’re going to actually need to have increased density. We’re just going to have to figure that piece out. There are going to need to be some adjustments made. But I think overall, in part because the folks who live here are very progressive minded, they do think it’s important to house their neighbours. And they don’t want unhoused people in parks because that’s just cruel.”

Families who make $200k can't afford a home. We're way beyond people sleeping in parks. It's almost comical how far off people are regarding the scale of the issue.

I think she takes the issue quite seriously; she's giving a workable quote for a short piece in a local paper. Its not a long-form essay.

*****

That said, this is the quote from the article I thought stood out more:

Berns-McGown thinks that there are solutions that can combine new developments with the old in a way that isn’t as intrusive to current residents.

“I’m the daughter of an architect,” said Berns-McGown. “And I have many architects in my family, I have many friends who are architects. I am absolutely convinced that good architecture always figures out how to be part of its context and its environment and not be a jarring thing in the middle of it. That doesn’t make any sense. I’m not always convinced that developers understand that. But I think that if you have good architects involved in projects, you will always figure out how to make it blend in with an environment.”

I think that's on-point. To be clear, their are NIMBY types who will oppose anything other than a clone SFH that looks like the majority of the homes in an area; and some who would even oppose that.

But I don't concern myself with persuading the unpersuadable. I am concerned with how mainstream residents/voters respond to the needs for density/housing/affordable housing etc.

If you can't move that voter to agree to change, it simply won't happen at a scale that matters, and the crisis will remain or worsen.

I believe most can be brought around to supporting these things in their community; but there has to be some sense of anticipating what people want and what they'll object to, and making a good faith effort
to produce something as agreeable as possible; while contributing to a meaningful solution.

That's true in affordable housing, its true in just ordinary market housing which at least increases supply.

 

[wopchop]

I think people are generally quite skeptical of any process that gives developers free reign, and completely removes their democracy from the process.

Developers, after all, are a bunch of untrustworthy maggots.

Obviously there needs to be a balance, and we cannot afford a NIMBY at all costs society, but the complete opposite should also be avoided. With this government, I think it is fair for people to be skeptical about their intentions.

 

[evandyk]

Developers, after all, are a bunch of untrustworthy maggots.

That's equally true of Beaches NIMBYs too, though.

 

[wopchop]

That's equally true of Beaches NIMBYs too, though.

I won't defend them. Probably the Beaches NIMBYs are awful, from what I hear, but I don't know many people in the Beaches.

But as someone who has worked for many, many developers - I find it hard to believe they are equal maggots. They are scum, sorry. Completely untrustworthy. Would sell their mothers, if they could.

 

[evandyk]

I won't defend them. Probably the Beaches NIMBYs are awful, from what I hear, but I don't know many people in the Beaches.

But as someone who has worked for many, many developers - I find it hard to believe they are equal maggots. They are scum, sorry. Completely untrustworthy. Would sell their mothers, if they could.

The Beaches NIMBYs wouldn't sell their mothers. But they literally don't give a crap about anyone who doesn't own a house in the Beaches. They have their house, and they want to get paid. Not sure it's any better.