Planned Sprawl in the GTA

[Johnny Au]

Not surprising at all for Texas. In other news, Texas is removing critical thinking from public schools. Because why be intelligent when you don't have to.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...tical-thinking-skills-in-texas-public-schools

No wonder why Dell's corporate headquarters had to import their employees from outside the state, given that Dell is based in Texas. The same can be said about Texas Instruments. Oh, and robots produced outside of Texas are more intelligent than the average Texan. The Alamo is no match for an army of robots.

Critical thinking begets innovation.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Here is a briefing note from CIBC explaining why we need to allow more low-density sprawl in the GTA. Apparently if we don't sprawl out more, people will have nowhere to live and business might leave too. Total nonsense

The article conflates housing prices with prices for single family homes. It was also published by a bank that has a financial interest in taking advantage of a hot market for this type of development.

https://economics.cibccm.com/economicsweb/cds?ID=1137&TYPE=EC_PDF

The mantra that we need sprawl or Ontario is doomed is being published a lot these days.

 

[diminutive]

Here is a briefing note from CIBC explaining why we need to allow more low-density sprawl in the GTA. Apparently if we don't sprawl out more, people will have nowhere to live and business might leave too. Total nonsense.

The conclusion isn't that one-sided. It also notes that policies like increased social housing, better transit and fewer barriers to new construction.

Housing prices in the GTA are high relative to incomes and it has a major impact on the region's future. It is a very serious issue if home ownership consumes 60% of incomes.

The article conflates housing prices with prices for single family homes. It was also published by a bank that has a financial interest in taking advantage of a hot market for this type of development.

It's a stretch to criticize the authors' motivations. Yes, CIBC benefits from a hot housing market. That would incentivize policies that further restrict land supply and increase land prices. The author also advocated solutions like flipping taxes which wouldn't seem to directly help CIBC.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Housing prices in the GTA are high relative to incomes and it has a major impact on the region's future. It is a very serious issue if home ownership consumes 60% of incomes.

You just made the same error as the author. The affordability of single family homes is not the same thing as the affordability of housing.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Want to lower house and condo prices? Force developers to include the numbers 4 and 13 in their addresses, floor numbers, and suite numbers. That's reduce prices, especially for the non-superstitious buyers.

 

[diminutive]

You just made the same error as the author. The affordability of single family homes is not the same thing as the affordability of housing.

No I didn't. I used an aggregate measure of the entire housing market, including both SFDs and condos. In the aggregate, Toronto's housing market is very unaffordable relative to incomes and in the aggregate this has negative impacts.

Condos are cheaper but that's the result of smaller unit sizes. "Family sized condos" (say, 75% of a typical SFD's size) are even more unaffordable than SFDs.

The market's bifurcated. Condos are working due to slightly smaller unit sizes and tons of new construction, but the market for family sized dwellings is getting out of control. In theory we could accommodate families in high-rises but that would require baseline housing prices to be even more unaffordable than today.

I think the report correctly noted that the cause of the shortage isn't even the Greenbelt so much as development policies within existing built up areas.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

It is certainly true that having large lots and big apartments has become unaffordable for many. I wont disagree with you on that. Toronto is changing. Single family houses are becoming a luxury item, as they are in many other cities around the world. But that doesn't mean that accommodation is unaffordable. Most people can afford to rent even if they can't afford to buy, and many people can afford to buy a condo that is smaller than the house they want. Sprawl is a high price to pay so that a few of us can have a cheaper house. I don't want to subsidize someone's sense of entitlement while I live more sustainably.

The crucial error of the article is that it tells us we need more suburban sprawl or housing becomes unaffordable. That's false.

 

[diminutive]

I think you're being a bit blithe about affordability issues in the GTA. Even limiting our view to condos, the median Toronto household would have to dedicate ~36% of their income to housing. Anything over 30% is deemed 'unaffordable.' And we're just talking about modestly sized Toronto condos here, not Bruce Wayne-esque mansions.

It's also a bit misplaced to make this a 'sustainability' issue. Most evidence shows that Toronto and Vancouver, where the housing crisis is most pronounced, are more or less average in terms of ecological footprint. (see the FCM footprint metrics)

I appreciate that urban sprawl is undesirable and should be curtailed. Urbanists can be a bit callous about negative housing costs implications ('downsize houses!' 'rent!') however. We should try to avoid the narrative in Vancouver, which was talked up as a new-urbanist triumph for decades despite glaring affordability issues.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

I think you're being a bit blithe about affordability issues in the GTA. Even limiting our view to condos, the median Toronto household would have to dedicate ~36% of their income to housing. Anything over 30% is deemed 'unaffordable.' And we're just talking about modestly sized Toronto condos here, not Bruce Wayne-esque mansions.

It's also a bit misplaced to make this a 'sustainability' issue. Most evidence shows that Toronto and Vancouver, where the housing crisis is most pronounced, are more or less average in terms of ecological footprint. (see the FCM footprint metrics)

I appreciate that urban sprawl is undesirable and should be curtailed. Urbanists can be a bit callous about negative housing costs implications ('downsize houses!' 'rent!') however. We should try to avoid the narrative in Vancouver, which was talked up as a new-urbanist triumph for decades despite glaring affordability issues.

I'm not an environmentalist; I'm a tax-payer. Sustainability also covers financial sustainability, which is what I meant with my comment. Sprawl is expensive and subsidized. I don't want to pay taxes to subsidize someone's sense of entitlement.

As for affordability: rent. Or downsize. Or move far away. Problem solved. People in cities all over the world do this. I'm not being callous by refusing to subsidize more sprawl. It's not my problem if you have to downsize. Pay for it yourself.

 

[diminutive]

To the extent that anybody is subsidizing anyone else's infrastructure it's extraordinarily minimal. Government spending on non-health, non-education activities is minimal to begin with. The notion that there is some kind of economically significant sprawl subsidy is just wrong. Maybe if you have a particularly high tax burden you are subsidizing some sprawl but for the vast majority of Canadians there is no real financial burden to "sprawl" (however that is defined).

As for affordability: rent. Or downsize. Or move far away. Problem solved. People in cities all over the world do this. I'm not being callous by refusing to subsidize more sprawl. It's not my problem if you have to downsize. Pay for it yourself.

This is incredibly silly. First, rental costs in the long run will always approximate ownership costs. Renting isn't some magic solution to rising housing costs. Second, downsizing is part of the solution and nobody needs 5,000 sq.ft McMansions but we're already at the point where even modest homes are unaffordable. Third, Toronto shouldn't become a rich person playground. Again, this is a recipe for Vancouverism where all the creative and dynamic aspects of the city have been squeezed out due to housing costs.

And nobody is asking for you to subsidize anything. Increasing the housing supply doesn't require subsidies.

 

[doady]

The "urban sprawl" of Toronto is much denser than Waterloo. GTA is undergoing far more intensification that Waterloo is. 35.4% of occupied dwellings in Mississauga in 2011 were apartments compared to 24.2% for Waterloo. So we don't need some guy from Waterloo to lecture us on downsizing and sustainability. It's not his money paying for it regardless. So we neither need nor want his fucking money.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The initial housing cost might be cheaper the further away from the Toronto city centre, however, the annual property taxes would be higher. In addition, transportation costs will be higher, because of the lack of public transit, increase in the demand for gasoline, and the higher maintenance costs because of the faster accumulation of mileage because everything is so far apart. Duplication of vehicles could also be considered, else the driver will have to chauffeur everyone, that's everyone, around.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

I'm editing my post because I don't want to drag this into the mud.

I've said everything I can on the subject. I have nothing else to offer.

 

[James]

The initial housing cost might be cheaper the further away from the Toronto city centre, however, the annual property taxes would be higher. In addition, transportation costs will be higher, because of the lack of public transit, increase in the demand for gasoline, and the higher maintenance costs because of the faster accumulation of mileage because everything is so far apart. Duplication of vehicles could also be considered, else the driver will have to chauffeur everyone, that's everyone, around.

I think one of the problems is that moving out to suburbs is still more financially viable for the majority of people out there. Consider the difference between buying a home in Toronto for, say, $1M versus a house in the suburbs for $750k. Based on a 20% down payment, the $1M will set you back roughly $4,000/mth in mortgage payments versus the $750k house setting you back $3,000/mth, with all other home related costs being equal. That $1,000/month difference can still make sense despite the additional costs of commuting, car insurance, etc. One major downside, of course, is time. That said, a lot of people are still willing to de-value their personal time and trade that time for a bigger house in a quiet residential neighborhood.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Carless Renters Forced to Pay $440 Million a Year for Parking They Don’t Use

From link.

Many residents of American cities can’t escape the high cost of parking, even if they don’t own cars. Thanks to policies like mandatory parking requirements and the practice of “bundling” parking with housing, carless renters pay $440 million each year for parking they don’t use, according to a new study by C.J. Gabbe and Gregory Pierce in the journal Housing Policy Debate.

The financial burden works out to an average of $621 annually per household, or a 13 percent rent premium — and it is concentrated among households that can least afford it. “Minimum parking standards create a major equity problem for carless households,” said Gabbe. “71 percent of renters without a car live in housing with at least one parking space included in their rent.”

Parking is typically bundled with rent, making the price of residential parking opaque. So Gabbe and Pierce set out to estimate how much people are actually paying for the parking that comes with their apartments.

Crunching Census data from a representative sample of more than 38,000 rental units in American urban areas, they isolated the relationship between parking provision and housing prices. They determined that on average, a garaged parking space adds about $1,700 per year in rent — a 17 percent premium.

Looking only at carless households, the average cost is $621 per year and the premium is 13 percent. On average these households earn about $24,000 annually, compared to $44,000 for the whole sample, and they get no value whatsoever out of the parking spaces bundled with their rent.

Gabbe and Pierce estimate that nationwide there are 708,000 households without a car renting an apartment with a garaged parking space, for a total cost burden of about $440 million per year due to unused parking.

So how can parking policy create fairer housing prices?

Gabbe and Pierce say cities should eliminate minimum parking requirements to make housing more affordable. Cities can also help by allowing and encouraging landlords to “unbundle” the cost of parking from the cost of rent — so people who don’t have cars aren’t forced to pay for parking spaces they don’t use.