23-year supply of vacant suburban residential land

[Mille Sabords]

For all those trying to pull a snow job on the city by saying we're short of suburban land...
====================================

City with 23-year supply of vacant land, half owned by developers
By Roman Zakaluzny, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Thu, Jan 3, 2008 1:00 PM EST

Developers Richcraft and Urbandale together control about a third of vacant, undeveloped residential land in the City of Ottawa, a city report notes.

They and a number of other developers together sit on enough vacant land within the city's boundaries to meet growth needs for the next 23 years, the report also added, although only three per cent of that available land is within the Greenbelt.

In a report that goes before the planning and environment committee Jan. 8., planners listed a complete inventory of vacant, urban residential land based on data collected at the end of 2006.

While the amount of land has shrunk since the last survey was done a year prior, planners found there is sufficient supply to meet city growth needs until 2031, and enough to be "well above" provincial minimums for the next decade.

Since 1982, the Vacant Urban Residential Land Survey has monitored the supply of vacant urban residential land to determine if it meets policies of the city's Official Plan as well as various Provincial Policy Statements.

Aspects of their findings play a role in council decisions on zoning and whether or not to expand the City of Ottawa's urban boundaries.

The report noted that Ottawa's rate of residential intensification was increasing. Intensification activity was strong in 2006, accounting for 36 per cent of new dwelling units in Ottawa's urban area, which is higher than the 31-per-cent average since 2001.

The amount of vacant land varied by neighbourhood. Areas within the Greenbelt had a 3.9-year supply of vacant land while elsewhere, the supply was higher. Kanata/Stittsville had 13.4 years, Orleans had 14.9 years, South Nepean 11.4 years, Riverside South 9.6 years and Leitrim 29.2 years.

More land is available on the periphery of Ottawa than in town. Vacant land supply shares by area were as follows: Kanata/Stittsville: 34 per cent; Riverside South: 21 per cent; South Nepean: 19 per cent; Orleans: 18 per cent; Leitrim: five per cent; inside the Greenbelt: three per cent.

The report noted that 10 landowners controlled at least 54 per cent of the land supply when the survey was taken a year ago. Richcraft (15.4 per cent) and Urbandale (10.5 per cent) were the only two to break into the double digit territory.

The other top-eight landowners were Brookfield (4.8 percent), KNL Developments (4.4 per cent), Minto (4.4 per cent), Mattamy (3.9 per cent), Westpark (3.9 per cent, since sold to Claridge), Tartan (3.5 per cent), the City of Ottawa (2.2 per cent), and Claridge (two per cent).

"If known partnerships are accounted for, Richcraft and Urbandale together account for over 30 per cent of the land supply," the report noted.

Other facts included:


The inventoried supply of vacant urban residential land and its unit potential stood at approximately 2,750 net hectares and 104,400 units at the end of 2006, compared to 2,930 hectares and 106,700 units in December 2005.


The supply of land serviced with trunk sewers and water mains represents a 12-year supply based on average demand over the last five years, or 15-years' supply based on projected consumption. This also exceeds the required three-year supply set out in Provincial Policy Statements.


The supply of registered and draft-approved land in December 2006 (862 net hectares) represented a 5.8-year supply based on average consumption over the last five years, or 7.1 years based on projected demand. "This is a significant increase from 2005 (673 hectares), and exceeds the Provincial Policy requirement for a three-year supply of serviced registered and draft-approved lots."


Consumption of vacant urban residential land in 2006 totalled 133 net hectares, up from 117 hectares in 2005 but below the five-year average of 150 hectares. Housing units constructed on these lands totalled 4,108, up from 3,382 in 2005.

The annual report has some bearing on council deliberations on expanding Ottawa's urban boundary, the report stated. Those deliberations are set to start in the spring, after the tabling of the draft Urban Development Strategy.

Copies of the summary report, which includes a detailed parcel list and accompanying map showing unit potential, approval status, ownership and other information for individual properties, are available at the City Hall Client Service Centre (publication #13-17 for the report, and publication #13-18 for the map and parcel list).

[Deez]

Maybe this is just the residual LRT cynicism talking, but I'd say we're no more than 2 years away from another developer convincing the OMB that the city is in dire need of expanding its suburban boundaries.

I'm not sure if it's the city that has really crappy lawyers or the developers that have really good lawyers, but it's really frustrating either way.

[AuxTown]

Why would the developers want the city to expand its borders? They are doing just fine gobbling up land in Carleton Place with little or no fight from the local government whereas in Ottawa it's a red tape bonanza! I guess the newly developed areas might have better municipal transit access or services but developers don't care about that crap. ;)

[clynnog]

Maybe this is just the residual LRT cynicism talking, but I'd say we're no more than 2 years away from another developer convincing the OMB that the city is in dire need of expanding its suburban boundaries.

I'm not sure if it's the city that has really crappy lawyers or the developers that have really good lawyers, but it's really frustrating either way.

Unfortunately for boosters of keeping the City urban limit boundaries the
way that they are, City staff (Legal and Planning) have proven over time to not be effective expert witnesses/legal presenters at the OMB. The expansion hearing in 2005 for the area between Stittsville and Kanata proved this to be the case. The City witnesses were relatively unprepared in comparison to the heavily funded planning, engineering and legal representation that was heavily Toronto centric.

[clynnog]

Why would the developers want the city to expand its borders? They are doing just fine gobbling up land in Carleton Place with little or no fight from the local government whereas in Ottawa it's a red tape bonanza! I guess the newly developed areas might have better municipal transit access or services but developers don't care about that crap. ;)

O-Town, you have things in CP perfectly analyzed. Most municipalities in eastern Ontario are a walk in the park compared to dealing with the City of Ottawa in terms of time, costs, background studies etc. Despite this, CP is developing into a craptastic place IMHO.....I fear for the shops on Main Street etc, in the light of the edge of town stuff that is emerging on the south side of Hwy 7.

[Mille Sabords]

Personally, I prefer seeing the low-density sprawl going to municipalities outside Ottawa so we can focus the city's efforts on overcoming fears of density and height.

Clynnog, you hit the nail right on the head about the 2005 OMB hearing. The city had ample technical evidence to make its case but couldn't muster the ability to score the touchdown.

[waterloowarrior]

Battle over urban boundary line heating up
Jake Rupert
The Ottawa Citizen
Monday, January 07, 2008

The city and local housing developers are at odds - again - over extending the municipality's urban boundary.

The city says there's plenty of residential development land available inside the existing boundary, but developers say there isn't and the situation is artificially driving up the price of new homes.

A decision on whether or not to extend the boundary, which is designed to limit sprawl, will be made later this year by city council during its review and update of the municipality's official plan, but the issue is heating up now.

A recent city study, which will be presented to councillors on the municipality's planning committee today, found there is enough vacant residential land in the city to accommodate 23 years of growth. This is more than double the 10-year supply the province mandates cities maintain.

Furthermore, the study found their is enough land with water and sewer services right now for 15 more years based on current growth projections, which is five times the provincial guidelines.

Yesterday, John Herbert, executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association, said the findings are "shocking.

"We don't agree there's enough land for 23 years," he said. "Seven or eight years, max, is more like it."

Mr. Herbert said members of his association are particularly galled by the city's estimates because as a way of settling a 2003 dispute over the same issue, developers and city officials are supposed to be working on an agreement for urban boundary expansion.

Ian Cross, the city's official in charge of estimating the amount of land needed for residential growth, agreed with Mr. Herbert that the sticking point is projections of how baby boomers chose to live when they retire.

The city feels they will follow the established retiree pattern of selling their single family homes in favour of less expensive and easier to maintain condos or apartments.

Mr. Herbert says this will not happen because boomers are the richest generation on record, and that they are likely to remain in single family homes after retirement because they will be able to afford it.

He said this will result in the need for more growth land for new homes for young families. He said already a scarcity of land driving up the cost of new homes and is threatening to push prices beyond the reach of first time buyers.

He said he and members of the association will continue to argue that the boundary needs to be expanded to accommodate more new homes and keep prices low.

"If we are unable to do so, we will have consider objections" to the Ontario Municipal Board, which hears appeals of municipal planning decisions, Mr. Herbert said.

Mr. Cross said the city is already starting to see baby boomers retire and sell their single family homes. He said city planning staff will look at the issue closely over the next few months and make a recommendation to council on expansion of the urban boundary by the summer.


He also noted the recent study found current planning policies, including

the existing urban boundary, are contributing to more intensification building in areas already serviced by water, sewers and roads. This kind of development, he said, is cheaper for the city, has less environmental impact and helps build stronger communities.

Capital Councillor Clive Doucet, planning committee, outright dismissed the developers' claims.

"They're wrong, and we're right," he said. "Developers are always saying there isn't enough land. Ottawa's got more than land inside the urban boundary than you can shake a stick at."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008
.

[clynnog]

.

Didn't Doucet say at one point that he was never going to listen to anything that O'Brien said. Somewhere inbetween 8 and 23 years is probably where the real truth is. Personally, I find it hard to conceptualize how and where people are going to want to live in 23 years. This is a classic battle of the free market wanting to build wherever the builders own the land and the keeper of the rules wanting growth to only occur where they want it to...what will happen if the NIMBY's within the greenbelt keep on objecting to redevelopment and growth....then the pressure on the urban boundary will continue unabated

[waterloowarrior]

^ yeah ... and if we want growth to be redirected to the core, why do even the urban councillors have negative attitudes about intensification (over 5-6 storeys). Would they rather have those people go to the outer suburbs instead and clog up urban streets with cars? You can see here some of the comments about intensification (http://ottawa.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/special_session/intensification_en.html) targets from the councillors themselves

At how fine a level should intensification targets be set? City-wide, for each neighbourhood, for growth nodes such as rapid transit stations?

:tup:
We should be deciding what makes sense. Maybe tall and narrow does make sense. In some places they get upset with stacked townhouses. We can’t just keep doing single detached housing and country estates.
We need to target areas. The problem is that when 1000 people rise up, we as councillors back down. Maybe we need to change the rules for intensification projects – they could require a 2/3 vote by Council to be turned down.
Ties in with sacrosanct NCC Greenbelt land. If you looked at Barrhaven – 5 km from Fallowfield to Hunt Club. There is the VIA Stop, Rapid Transit etc – what could you do at that node. What about a LEED level transit-oriented development? Even if it were in the Greenbelt we could get people to accept that.:maddown:

The focus should be on defining intensification. It means different things in different areas. We need to get this right. Staff is promoting intensification too much.
When we’re dealing with established neighbourhoods, the staff has to be more sensitive. It’s a question of degree of intensification. I get a lot of calls from people who are looking for new singles in my ward. But, they are only building towns and stacked. We should be building what is compatible – staff seems to think the higher the better. Staff and the Official Plan have raised expectations that the sky is the limit.
Intensification is simply putting more people in the space that you have. What does it mean for the community? How much greenspace, how much forest canopy. It’s a recipe for reducing the quality of life in our communities.

I'm intersted to see what will happen with the OP review wrt intensification policies

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

How about instead of constantly extending urban boundaries(which will also increase transit costs), we overcome this fear of height and urban density and develop the many farm areas of the greenbelt? :rolleyes: :hell:

[waterloowarrior]

Perhaps a Growth Plan for Greater Ottawa under Places to Grow could be a good solution.... preferably with higher density targets, a stricter way of defining intensification, limiting exurban and leapfrog development (ie include places like Carleton Place, Kemptville, Russell).... more teeth.

[clynnog]

^ yeah ... and if we want growth to be redirected to the core, why do even the urban councillors have negative attitudes about intensification (over 5-6 storeys).

I'm intersted to see what will happen with the OP review wrt intensification policies

My experience with City Councillors is that they talk a good talk about intensification/higher densities etc, but when the 'rubber hits the road' and they get a whiff of opposition by nearby residents they usually back down from their intensification focus and side with the nearby residents.

This, surprisingly, gets even more pronounced in the run up to elections. City Planners are in a real conundrum in trying to balance their own beliefs in intensification versus a widespread fear of the impacts of intensification/new growth on existing homeowners etc, that is often backed up by councillors rapidly changing positions. IMHO, if the site plan approval process was a completely staff run process (i.e after the zoning has been set then the general public and the Councillor aren't involved any more), things would move more quickly and it would be left up to the design/implementation professionals. Just my tuppence worth.

[waterloowarrior]

.

[waterloowarrior]

2008 update to the vacant residential land survey (http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/10-27/05-ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0196%20-%20Vacant%20Urban%20Residential%20Land%20Survey%202008%20Update.htm)
20 year supply of designated land, 10.4 years of serviced land

The 10 largest landowners held 70 per cent of the residential land supply in 2008, a significant increase from 59 per cent in 2007. Major owners were Richcraft (14%), Urbandale (13%), Minto (10%), Mattamy (6%), Monarch (6%), Brookfield (5%), Claridge (5%), KNL (5%), Tartan (3%) and the City of Ottawa (3%). If partnerships are considered, Richcraft and Urbandale together account for 32 per cent of the land supply..

[eternallyme]

Perhaps a Growth Plan for Greater Ottawa under Places to Grow could be a good solution.... preferably with higher density targets, a stricter way of defining intensification, limiting exurban and leapfrog development (ie include places like Carleton Place, Kemptville, Russell).... more teeth.

Given the political makeup of those areas, that would never work without enormous protests. It is much more conservative there than in the GTA Greenbelt areas, and having strong support for guys like Randy Hillier proves it. Also many, many people there think global warming is a complete hoax as well.

[Proof Sheet]

Given the political makeup of those areas, that would never work without enormous protests. It is much more conservative there than in the GTA Greenbelt areas, and having strong support for guys like Randy Hillier proves it. Also many, many people there think global warming is a complete hoax as well.

Sounds like CFRA's target demographic:banana:

[eternallyme]

Sounds like CFRA's target demographic:banana:

Indeed, that is where they draw their ratings from mostly - rural Ottawa and the surrounding counties, and to a somewhat lesser extent in the suburbs. Certainly not the downtown core or the old city. Although the city of Ottawa is not seen as much of an enemy as Toronto is from those areas, so a plan made in Queen's Park (or Parliament Hill) would be much more toxic than a municipal agreement.

(In one way, everyone should be glad they didn't decide to split 613, since it would create a political region of frequent ridicule - the "343 area" would have been seen as the laughing stock of Ontario in the minds of the media and urban circles)

[waterloowarrior]

Concentration of vacant residential land ownership 'significantly increases': city
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/295741809069454.php
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Mon, Oct 26, 2009 2:00 PM EST

Nine homebuilders control more than two-thirds of Ottawa's vacant residential urban land supply, city staff say in a new report.

In a study being tabled at Tuesday's planning and environment committee meeting, city officials say there has been a "significant increase" in the concentration of ownership.

Including the city of Ottawa, the ten largest landowners held 70 per cent of the vacant residential land supply in 2008, up from 59 per cent a year earlier, the report says.

When partnerships are considered, Richcraft and Urbandale together account for 32 per cent of the land supply. Other major residential landowners include:

Minto (10 per cent)
Mattamy (six per cent)
Monarch (six per cent)
Brookfield Homes (five per cent)
Claridge (five per cent)
Tartan (three per cent)
City of Ottawa (three per cent)
Excluding the land added to the urban area by council in June, the city had a net urban residential land supply of 2,441 hectares (6,032 acres), enough for 96,100 units. Based on the city's projected growth figures, this is enough to meet Ottawa's needs for the next two decades.

However, the head of Ottawa's homebuilding sector has previously taken issue with the way the city calculates its available land supply.

"We see the next 25 years being very different from the last 25 years in terms of the demographics, and the type of housing that is going to be required for that demographic group," said John Herbert, the executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association, in an earlier interview.

He said empty-nesters and seniors who have historically moved from single-family houses into condominiums and apartments will stay in their homes longer. In the past, those groups were forced to move because of financial or health reasons.

Separately, the city reports notes that at 33.9 units per hectare, the average density of housing built in 2008 was the highest recorded level since the city began monitoring in 1983.

[waterloowarrior]

It would be interesting to see who owns all the land on the "urban fringe" just outside the urban boundary. I've heard that Minto owns or has options on a lot of the land between Barrhaven and Manotick.

You can see some of the ownership with the proposals for the urban boundary expansion during the recent OP review. It's the usual suspects of Minto, Urbandale, Richcraft... some farmers... and that big Calgary developer who wanted to develop between Kanatittsvillernbank and Richmond

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/03-31/1-ACS2009-ICS-PLA-0064%20-%20OP%20Review%20-%20Amendment.htm

[eternallyme]

Is there any land currently on the development area list that could be removed?

As for Fernbank Lands, does any of the development areas lie in the 100-year floodplain zone? That should be designated as parkland, even if it requires expanding the boundary elsewhere.

[waterloowarrior]

Is there any land currently on the development area list that could be removed?

As for Fernbank Lands, does any of the development areas lie in the 100-year floodplain zone? That should be designated as parkland, even if it requires expanding the boundary elsewhere.

IIRC the only areas that got into the new OP were the lands abutting Fernbank (http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/op/sched_r35_en.pdf) and on the south side of Stittsville (http://ottawa.ca/residents/planning/op/sched_r44_en.pdf)... the rest will have to wait until next time (although some have said they will try to appeal). The 'choosing our future' initiative should also be quite important for this.

The Fernbank parts are bufffered, but that is subject to appeal :)
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Carp+River+group+files+appeal+with+proposed+Fernbank+development/1871691/story.html

this is from the sept. 08 draft plan

http://wwuploads.googlepages.com/fernbankcdp.jpg

[eternallyme]

Abbott Street, for the most part, is the old CP rail corridor. Should a ROW be preserved there for rail re-installation (although with construction not imminent by any means)? The Highway 7 corridor probably has the most ridership potential for regional rail in the long term.

[waterloowarrior]

Urban boundary 'starving' smaller builders, observers say
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Mon, Nov 2, 2009 9:00 AM EST
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/295793568811587.php

City councillors are forcing some of Ottawa's largest homebuilders to hoard land, driving up ownership concentration levels and squeezing out smaller builders by limiting the amount of land available for residential development, says the head of Ottawa's homebuilding industry.

Nine homebuilders control more than two-thirds of the vacant urban residential land supply in Ottawa, according to a municipal report tabled last week. Add in the city's land holdings, and the 10 largest landowners controlled 70 per cent of the 2,441 hectares available for residential development in 2008, up from 59 per cent a year earlier.

When partnerships are considered, Richcraft and Urbandale together account for 32 per cent of the land supply.

John Herbert, executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association, says larger developers are retaining their holdings for their own future use and are no longer willing to sell lots to small and medium-sized builders because "the taps have been shut off."

"This is starving the small and medium-sized builders out of business," says Mr. Herbert.

"The city is essentially granting a monopoly to a very few number of players who have deep enough pockets to play in the land ownership and development game . . . it's hurting our industry, and we've been trying to explain that to the city for years."

The city's vacant residential land survey was taken before last summer's debate over expanding the urban boundary, when councillors overruled the wishes of industry as well as the recommendations of city staff.

The local homebuilding association called for an additional 2,000 hectares of land be made available for residential development. City staff recommended 850 hectares, but city council ultimately chose to only designate a 230-hectare swath of land between Kanata and Stittsville. Mr. Herbert says his organization is still contemplating an appeal of the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

He says the difficulty among homebuilders in obtaining serviced land in Ottawa hurts consumers, who face higher prices and fewer choices in a less-competitive marketplace. He also says it undermines the anti-urban sprawl objectives of the activists who fought to restrict the growth of the urban boundary.

Mr. Herbert argues policies intended to promote intensification are "backfiring" as higher new home prices drive thousands of Ottawa families into outlying municipalities such as Arnprior, Kemptville and Rockland.

"They're still working in Ottawa and commuting every day. They are using our transportation infrastructure much more heavily and intensively than ever before, but they are not paying city of Ottawa development charges to support it."

Ian Cross, program manager of research and forecasting in the city's planning department, agrees that in theory less competition arguably means less product diversification and less affordability. Whether that's actually the case in the real world, however, is "a much more complicated issue."

While he says ownership concentration levels increased over the past decade, he says last year's jump can be at least partially explained by a more concerted effort by city staff to identify homebuilders operating as numbered companies or under a different name than the parent firm.

The issue of ownership diversification is "potentially an issue" for the city, which is why it was brought to councillors' attention in the report, says Mr. Cross. However, he says it is not a factor when the city debates the size of the urban boundary expansion every five years.

That's because municipalities' urban boundaries are set in accordance with the Ontario government's Provincial Policy Statement on land use, which says nothing on the issue of ownership concentration.

Instead, it instructs municipalities to have a 10-year supply of residential land. Based on current consumption trends, Ottawa's 2,441 net hectares is enough for the next two decades, according to the city.

However, Mr. Herbert disagrees with the way the city calculates its consumption projections and argues the next 25 years will be different from decades past. He says empty-nesters and seniors who have historically moved from single-family houses into condominiums and apartments will stay in their homes longer. In the past, those groups were forced to move because of finances or health reasons.

Yet Mr. Cross says there is recent evidence that a significant number of empty-nester households are making the switch to condominiums, which are also increasingly appealing to first-time homebuyers.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. data shows there have been more single-detached houses constructed in Ottawa than any other type of unit in every year since 1996, with the exception of 2003.

As a share of overall units built, however, single-detached houses declined to 41 per cent in 2008, compared to 50 per cent in 2003.

Fact box - cozy confines

The average density of housing built in Ottawa last year was the highest recorded level in at least 26 years, according to the city.

There was an average of 33.9 units per hectare, almost three units more than the five-year average. Outside the Greenbelt, the highest density housing was in Riverside South, where builders averaged 37.5 units per hectare. On the other end was Leitrim, where the density averaged only 22.6 units per hectares last year.

City program manager Ian Cross says there are several factors behind the trend, including higher land prices and municipal policies promoting higher densities.

Specifically, the city's updated Official Plan now requires builders of new subdivisions to achieve a minimum net density of 32 units per hectare. Other policies that promote density include narrower road right-of-ways and smaller school site sizes.

"We are heading in the direction of more compact developments," says Mr. Cross.

However, John Herbert, the executive director of the Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association, says the city's approach is

misguided.

"You can develop to any density you want, but if you also want to maintain a reasonable quality of life and a good quality of urban design ... there is a heck of a lot more to it than density."

"We think they are making a big, big mistake."

[waterloowarrior]

When south meets west
Developer's plan will see suburbs continue to sprawl

Randall Denley
The Ottawa Citizen (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3934145&postcount=10)

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Yesterday, city councillors got their staff's pitch for intensification and limited new suburban growth, but a major Calgary-based development company is already lobbying for a big new suburban expansion that would include much of the land between Stittsville and Barrhaven, sweeping as far south as the village of Richmond.

The proposal to expand the city's southwestern suburbs isn't intended to get immediate approval from council, Walton Development and Management vice-president Paul Mondell says, but he wants to get the idea out for discussion to see if it fits with the city's long-term plans.




I found this on their website... interesting! (this is land outside the urban boundary btw)

https://www.waltoninternational.com/ottawa

Ottawa
Walton's selected target area in Canada's capital city is in the west end. Located along the Queensway (Provincial Highway 416), the target area is located between two former municipalities that were amalgamated into the City of Ottawa, during the municipal consolidation in 2001. Ottawa is part of the National Capital Region, and is Canada's 4th largest city (after Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal)1. Home to the federal government, the Ottawa economy is very diverse and stable, with a large supply of public and private enterprises based in this market.

Ottawa, similar to the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), also has a "greenbelt" that was designed to protect open space and parkland surrounding the core area of the City. The result is an increase in prices, and lack of development opportunity inside the Greenbelt, and a proven desire from the consumer and residents to locate outside of the Greenbelt in lower cost, single family neighbourhoods. Walton's strategic advantage in this market is to create a land assembly that allows the City of Ottawa to create a long-term vision and growth plan that is efficient and "smart". Through consolidated ownership and planning efforts, Walton can offer a much more efficient development solution and land use plan than would be seen if individual stakeholders were to plan the lands 50-100 acres at a time.

Based between Kanata and Stittsville, the target area benefits from public transportation, access to multiple Provincial Highways and is abutting the existing development boundary. Kanata, commonly referred to as Silicon Valley North, has experienced rapid job growth in the last fifteen years, and has grown into a second employment district.

True to Walton's acquisition strategy, Walton has successfully assembled the largest land position in the target area and is actively pursuing entitlements and growth plans for the area.

Click the image below to view a map of Walton projects syndicated in Ottawa.

https://www.waltoninternational.com/images/maps/ottawa_s.jpg
(https://www.waltoninternational.com/files/maps/Walton_2009_OttawaMap.pdf)

[Dado]

I found this on their website... interesting! (this is land outside the urban boundary btw)

Interesting is right. My head is spinning at some of the claims (as well as the numerous inaccuracies, such as misnaming the 416 as the Queensway and misnaming the former townships as counties) like the lands benefiting from public transportation.


https://www.waltoninternational.com/ottawa

Ottawa
Walton's selected target area in Canada's capital city is in the west end. Located along the Queensway (Provincial Highway 416), the target area is located between two former municipalities that were amalgamated into the City of Ottawa, during the municipal consolidation in 2001. Ottawa is part of the National Capital Region, and is Canada's 4th largest city (after Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal)1. Home to the federal government, the Ottawa economy is very diverse and stable, with a large supply of public and private enterprises based in this market.

Ottawa, similar to the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), also has a "greenbelt" that was designed to protect open space and parkland surrounding the core area of the City. The result is an increase in prices, and lack of development opportunity inside the Greenbelt, and a proven desire from the consumer and residents to locate outside of the Greenbelt in lower cost, single family neighbourhoods. Walton's strategic advantage in this market is to create a land assembly that allows the City of Ottawa to create a long-term vision and growth plan that is efficient and "smart". Through consolidated ownership and planning efforts, Walton can offer a much more efficient development solution and land use plan than would be seen if individual stakeholders were to plan the lands 50-100 acres at a time.

Based between Kanata and Stittsville, the target area benefits from public transportation, access to multiple Provincial Highways and is abutting the existing development boundary. Kanata, commonly referred to as Silicon Valley North, has experienced rapid job growth in the last fifteen years, and has grown into a second employment district.

True to Walton's acquisition strategy, Walton has successfully assembled the largest land position in the target area and is actively pursuing entitlements and growth plans for the area.

Click the image below to view a map of Walton projects syndicated in Ottawa.

https://www.waltoninternational.com/images/maps/ottawa_s.jpg
(https://www.waltoninternational.com/files/maps/Walton_2009_OttawaMap.pdf)

[Proof Sheet]

I found this on their website... interesting! (this is land outside the urban boundary btw)

https://www.waltoninternational.com/ottawa



Walton's strategic advantage in this market is to create a land assembly that allows the City of Ottawa to create a long-term vision and growth plan that is efficient and "smart". Through consolidated ownership and planning efforts, Walton can offer a much more efficient development solution and land use plan than would be seen if individual stakeholders were to plan the lands 50-100 acres at a time.

True to Walton's acquisition strategy, Walton has successfully assembled the largest land position in the target area and is actively pursuing entitlements and growth plans for the area.



From what I can figure out, Walton is buying up farmland and probably renting it back to the farmer or another absentee farmer. This is very long term land in anybody's mind. I love the term 'pursuing entitlements'.

I think what they are doing is promoting this in europe, particularly Germany, and selling shares in syndicates to wealthy investors who will flip and flip the land and make some money that way. The long term likelihood that this land will become an aluminum siding crop is pretty low in my lifetime.

If you look at the land assembly that they've done so far, they have targetted an area but haven't assembled everything so far.....

Have they made any applications for rezoning/draft plan of subdivision/OPA yet with the City or is this all in a very preliminary stage.

I do recall some press on this a year or so ago, but it got laughed off by most people, including Denley (who lives near this in Fallowfield Village).

[waterloowarrior]

From what I can figure out, Walton is buying up farmland and probably renting it back to the farmer or another absentee farmer. This is very long term land in anybody's mind. I love the term 'pursuing entitlements'.

I think what they are doing is promoting this in europe, particularly Germany, and selling shares in syndicates to wealthy investors who will flip and flip the land and make some money that way. The long term likelihood that this land will become an aluminum siding crop is pretty low in my lifetime.

If you look at the land assembly that they've done so far, they have targetted an area but haven't assembled everything so far.....

Have they made any applications for rezoning/draft plan of subdivision/OPA yet with the City or is this all in a very preliminary stage.

I do recall some press on this a year or so ago, but it got laughed off by most people, including Denley (who lives near this in Fallowfield Village).

They submitted a proposal during the OP review but were denied because it's all or almost all prime agriculture. There was enough non-prime agricultural land that the City didn't even consider prime agricultural land for expansion (with one or two exceptions) as per PPS.

re: public transit, I guess you could argue that the corridor through Kanata West and Fernbank could be extended down here..

[Dado]

re: public transit, I guess you could argue that the corridor through Kanata West and Fernbank could be extended down here..

I've seen a City of Ottawa map somewhere that had a conceptual transit corridor linking the N-S LRT corridor in Barrhaven with the future transit corridor through Fernbank, but such a ring line is so far out into the future to be practically unimaginable, and even then it might just pass through the land rather than serve anything.

These guys are more likely to have to sell some of their land to the feds/province for an HSR line than they are ever to see it developed. Not that the City of Ottawa or Nepean or Goulbourne ever thought about that, of course.

Personally I like the idea of a nice big 'green wedge' separating Kanata and Barrhaven from each other. I've never been enamoured with the argument that because serviced development exists next to a parcel of land then that parcel of land obviously has to be developed as well.

[Mille Sabords]

I think what they are doing is promoting this in europe, particularly Germany, and selling shares in syndicates to wealthy investors who will flip and flip the land and make some money that way. The long term likelihood that this land will become an aluminum siding crop is pretty low in my lifetime.

Actually, most are Chinese investors from the mainland who obviously know nothing about Canadian urban growth patterns but will probably make some return on flips until the bubble bursts.

The same happened around Montreal at the time of Expo '67. To this day there are thousands of small foreign investors who own worthless agricultural land that is nowhere near being rezoned for urbanization, and the perpetrators of these investment schemes have long vanished. The same will happen with Walton.

[Proof Sheet]

Actually, most are Chinese investors from the mainland who obviously know nothing about Canadian urban growth patterns but will probably make some return on flips until the bubble bursts.

The same happened around Montreal at the time of Expo '67. To this day there are thousands of small foreign investors who own worthless agricultural land that is nowhere near being rezoned for urbanization, and the perpetrators of these investment schemes have long vanished. The same will happen with Walton.

Years ago some chinese people in Toronto purchased land in what was then Cornwall Township (now South Stormont) that had been approved in the 1950's as residential land. It was never built on due to floodplains and other servicing issues. They were sold a package of goods by realtors and then a series of consultants tried to get it going in the late 80's/early 90's to no avail. The land is still basically as it was in the 50's, but a registered plan of subdivision is registered on title at the land registry office.

In the UK, there are companies that sell plots of land like this, often times in the middle of what looks like an agricultural piece of land...somehow, they manage to get it subdivided and then they sell off individual lots, many of which are without access. These tend to have been sold to the south Asian communities in the UK, many of whom are unaware of planning legislations.

In the Niagara area in the 80's, there were groups who were getting people to sever their properties in their wills and I believe the local municipalities had to accept them as new lots, thereby increasing the ribbon development on rural roads in Niagara area.

This Walton plan is going to be going nowhere fast I would think.

[waterloowarrior]

2009 vacant urban residential land survey

http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/08-24/11%20-%20ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0135%20-%20Vacant%20Urban%20Residential%20Land%20Survey.htm

Key findings for 2009 include:

• The inventoried supply of vacant urban residential land and its unit potential stood at 2 327 net hectares (ha) and approximately 94070 units at the end of 2009, compared to 2441 ha and 96100 units in December 2008. (These figures include land added to the urban area by Council in June 2009 as part of Official Plan Amendment No. 76.) This is sufficient for approximately 18 years at projected growth rates, significantly more than the 10-year requirement of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

• The supply of land serviced with trunk sewers and watermains represents approximately an 11-year supply based on projected demand. This significantly exceeds the requirement of a three-year supply of serviced land set out in the PPS.

• The supply of serviced land by area is: Inside the Greenbelt 3.9 years; Kanata-Stittsville 8.9 years; South Nepean 8.9 years; Riverside South 19.1 years; Leitrim 18.8 years; and Orléans 13.4 years.

• The supply of registered and draft approved vacant land with servicing in 2009 (654 ha) represents a 5.1-year supply based on projected demand. This exceeds the PPS requirement for a three year supply of serviced registered and draft approved lots.

• Consumption of urban residential land in 2009 totalled 126 net ha, down from 149 ha in 2008, and below the five-year average of 136 ha. Dwelling units constructed on these lands totalled 4427, down from 5039 in 2008.

• The average density of housing built on land surveyed in 2009, at 35.3 units per net ha, was the highest ever recorded by the survey. In the last two years, the density of single-detached houses has increased by eight per cent.

· Vacant land supply shares by area:
Kanata-Stittsville 36%
Riverside South 22%
Orléans 18%
South Nepean 17%
Leitrim 5%
Inside the Greenbelt 2%

• The 10 largest landowners held 64.5 per cent of the residential land supply in 2009, down from 72 per cent in 2008. Major owners were Richcraft (15.2%), Urbandale (9.9%), Minto (8.1%), Mattamy (6.6%), Claridge (5.3%), KNL (5.0%), Taggart/Tamarack (4.1%), Ashcroft (3.8%), CRT Developments (3.3%) and Tartan (3.1%). If partnerships are considered, Richcraft and Urbandale together accounted for about 32 per cent of the land supply.

Further details are contained in the main report. (http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/08-24/11%20-%20%20Document%201%20-%20Vacant%20Urban%20Residential%20Land%20Survey_2009%20(issued%20separately).pdf)

[DubberDom]

It is clear that the following is happening:

- Developers are hoarding all the land within the 2020 urban zone. This leads to higher housing costs and less competition
- Development moving outside City's limits - more and more developers are choosing to build in communities like Rockland, Limoges, Embrun, Kemptville, Carleton Place and Arnprior... and not to forget the Outaouais region, instead of developing within Ottawa.

Intensification, on it's own, is not a solution. I've been saying this forever. People want to live in houses... on land... in a community with soccer field and schools for the kids. If the City of Ottawa does not offer a compelling reason for consumers to buy what they want within the city's limit, they will (and are) going elsewhere, and the city ends up losing important tax revenue to outlying communities.

I work just West of Downtown, and out of the 12 people in my office, only 4 live within the Urban boundaries of the City of Ottawa, 4 are in Gatineau, 2 in Rockland, 1 Cumberland and 1 Carleton Place.

One of my good friends just moved to Limoges from Orleans. His commute is the same 25 minutes, yet his house cost around $150k cheaper than Orleans (not to mention that he has more land than Orleans could offer).

[rodionx]

It is clear that the following is happening:

- Developers are hoarding all the land within the 2020 urban zone. This leads to higher housing costs and less competition



... for new houses, assuming developers are hoarding land. But then that makes older houses and underutilized lands in fully serviced inner suburbs more attractive, doesn't it? If people can migrate out because of high prices in newly developed areas, then they can migrate back in for the same reason, except that in the latter case the city doesn't have to provide any new infrastructure.

Westboro was once a none too attractive inner suburb. My part of Centretown, where I'm raising two kids in a little old house, used to be pretty slummy, too. Still is in parts, but there's no shortage of young families. Cut off the endless supply of cheap vinyl boxes in the outer suburbs, and those little old houses on the edge of places like Carlingwood and Vanier will start looking good to people. Same goes for big new houses in rural areas - this is true - but when you factor in the costs to the city, it's a reasonable trade-off.

[eternallyme]

It is clear that the following is happening:

- Developers are hoarding all the land within the 2020 urban zone. This leads to higher housing costs and less competition
- Development moving outside City's limits - more and more developers are choosing to build in communities like Rockland, Limoges, Embrun, Kemptville, Carleton Place and Arnprior... and not to forget the Outaouais region, instead of developing within Ottawa.

Intensification, on it's own, is not a solution. I've been saying this forever. People want to live in houses... on land... in a community with soccer field and schools for the kids. If the City of Ottawa does not offer a compelling reason for consumers to buy what they want within the city's limit, they will (and are) going elsewhere, and the city ends up losing important tax revenue to outlying communities.

I work just West of Downtown, and out of the 12 people in my office, only 4 live within the Urban boundaries of the City of Ottawa, 4 are in Gatineau, 2 in Rockland, 1 Cumberland and 1 Carleton Place.

One of my good friends just moved to Limoges from Orleans. His commute is the same 25 minutes, yet his house cost around $150k cheaper than Orleans (not to mention that he has more land than Orleans could offer).

Yes, which is why intensification is always a failed strategy. Considering the political makeups of areas outside Ottawa (dominated by Tea Party conservatives), it would never work in surrounding municipalities. The best solution is to try to reach them with transit (i.e. commuter rail) and other amenities while disregarding development rules.

[McC]

2009 vacant urban residential land survey

The supply of serviced land by area is: Inside the Greenbelt 3.9 years

I know I haven't read the report (scuzzi, lazy!), but what can this possibly mean when there must be 20 years worth of vacant development land in the Escarpment, Lebreton Flats and Bayview Yards plans alone?

[DubberDom]

... for new houses, assuming developers are hoarding land. But then that makes older houses and underutilized lands in fully serviced inner suburbs more attractive, doesn't it? If people can migrate out because of high prices in newly developed areas, then they can migrate back in for the same reason, except that in the latter case the city doesn't have to provide any new infrastructure.


Take Edinburgh Common as a recent development for example, end unit townhouses are now selling for $459k on resale (they were just over $400k base price on pre-construction), middle units are $429k. My parents just purchased there. These are not luxury townhomes, they are plain vanilla 1500sf townhomes (Claridge claim up to 2000sf, but they include the finished basement in sf calculations which should never be included)

Consider the same townhouses are selling for $275k in the Surbs...

Now tell me how a first time home buyer can afford $450k? ... let alone $275k??

Again, I'm not saying that intensification is not part of the solution, but it is not the entire solution.

The main impact from this move to intensification and strict urban boundaries has been to drive up cost of land and development in the entire city. Good for existing home owners, bad for the new ones.

Take this as an example, in 2002, I was considering the purchase of an estate lot in Navan/Cumberland area. 1-2 acre lots were $35k-$45k. Today, the same lots, if you can find any, are over $200k and in some cases surpassing $300k!

[McC]

"Good for existing home owners, bad for the new ones."
it's not that great for existing home owners either, because the only way to realize that gain is to leave the housing market or take out another mortgage on the 'growth equity', and in the meantime you get to pay more and more property taxes as your assessment value chases after the market value.

[DubberDom]

Perhaps you need to better understand the property tax system before commenting.

Property taxes do not go up if your assessment goes up, they will only go up if your assessment % change is above the municipal avg % change for the same period (usually 3 years).

eg: if you assessment is up by 15% and the city avg is 15%, then your tax rate stays the same, if yours is up by 20% and city is 15%, then you go up by 5% etc....

[Dado]

Take Edinburgh Common as a recent development for example, end unit townhouses are now selling for $459k on resale (they were just over $400k base price on pre-construction), middle units are $429k. My parents just purchased there. These are not luxury townhomes, they are plain vanilla 1500sf townhomes (Claridge claim up to 2000sf, but they include the finished basement in sf calculations which should never be included)

Consider the same townhouses are selling for $275k in the Surbs...

Now tell me how a first time home buyer can afford $450k? ... let alone $275k??

Again, I'm not saying that intensification is not part of the solution, but it is not the entire solution.

The main impact from this move to intensification and strict urban boundaries

We haven't exactly had "strict urban boundaries" since amalgamation. The first OP of the new City saw an OMB appeal that added most of the area between Kanata and Stittsville to the urban boundary on the basis of claimed insufficient land supply for the then population horizon of 2021. In the recent OP, the remaining land between Kanata and Stittsville was added to the urban boundary to clean up the mess left behind by the OMB, and this despite the fact that the old population horizon of 2021 was now pushed back to 2031 (i.e. same estimated population, but ten years further in the future). In addition, the OMB has effectively added land in Manotick for urban development.

[The main impact from this move to intensification and strict urban boundaries] has been to drive up cost of land and development in the entire city.

That doesn't really make sense vis-à-vis the example you gave of townhouses in New Edinburgh. It's highly unlikely that strict urban boundaries are having much of an impact on house prices in New Edinburgh. Some, possibly, but not a lot. Most of the price effect there will be from a cachet or "luxury good" aspect because New Edinburgh is a sought-after neighbourhood in which to live. In this regard, intensification in areas like New Edinburgh is actually putting *downward* pressure on prices by opening up more development opportunities (more units per acre) than there would otherwise be. The fact that prices are going up regardless simply indicates that the downward price pressure of increasing the supply is not able to keep up with the upward price pressure of increasing demand to live in New Edinburgh. It's not at all hard to imagine that without intensification, prices in New Edinburgh and Westboro would be even higher than they are because the existing constrained supply of units would be even more sought after.

[rodionx]

Most of the price effect there will be from a cachet or "luxury good" aspect because New Edinburgh is a sought-after neighbourhood in which to live. In this regard, intensification in areas like New Edinburgh is actually putting *downward* pressure on prices by opening up more development opportunities (more units per acre) than there would otherwise be. The fact that prices are going up regardless simply indicates that the downward price pressure of increasing the supply is not able to keep up with the upward price pressure of increasing demand to live in New Edinburgh. It's not at all hard to imagine that without intensification, prices in New Edinburgh and Westboro would be even higher than they are because the existing constrained supply of units would be even more sought after.

I would see rising prices in the suburbs having an effect not in currently desirable areas like New Edinburgh, but in marginal areas - place that people are kind of iffy on. If you're just looking for an affordable house and aren't overly particular about where it is, its the older houses in slightly dodgy neighbourhoods that offer the best deals - better than what you'll find in Barrhaven.

I moved into a house at the dubious end of Centretown over four years ago, and my experience is that intensification in and of itself breeds further intensification. Once you get a certain number of people with decent paying jobs who look after their gardens and call the police when they see something suspicious, they tend to attract more of the same. And then it becomes economically viable to jack up that old house, renovate it and add a few units rather than rent it out to yahoos for whatever you can get. And that again makes the neighbourhood more attractive and more expensive.

Oh, and in defence of McC, I was one of those people that got clobbered in the last property tax assessment. It's true that in Ottawa as a whole, the assessments even out, but when you live in neighbourhood where property values are climbing significantly faster than the city as a whole, you do gotta pony up at tax time.

[Uhuniau]

Cut off the endless supply of cheap vinyl boxes in the outer suburbs, and those little old houses on the edge of places like Carlingwood and Vanier will start looking good to people.

They already are.

[McC]

It's true that in Ottawa as a whole, the assessments even out, but when you live in neighbourhood where property values are climbing significantly faster than the city as a whole, you do gotta pony up at tax time.
Thanks, that was one of the two point, that I was trying (admittedly, clumsily)to make

[McC]

They already are.

My "survey" is quite unscientific, but I had been watching the listings for about 3 years until we bought this past winter, and list prices in North Vanier ("Beechwood Village") seemed to me to be increasing by over 10% a year during that time (and this agent semed to be listing most of the best properties, each listed at prices considerably more expensive than the last: http://www.nataliebelovic.com/home/index_e.php)

[DubberDom]

Don't confuse Intensification and Urban Renewal

I dabble in real estate, I can assure you that the number 1 factor behind the price increases in the last 5 years is the cost of land, in many cases they are up 300%+. Cost of building residential homes has not increased that much.

My family sold their farmland to a developer a few years ago, the rate was $25k/acre in 1999, $55k/acre in 2005 and now its upward of $120k+/acre for residential zoned farm land within the urban boundaries in suburbs.

[waterloowarrior]

RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND SURVEY, 2009-10 UPDATE
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ara/2011/07-08/04-ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0143.htm

report itself isn't there, just the summary

[waterloowarrior]

2010 vacant urban residential land study
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2011/11-08/7%20-%20ACS2011-ICS-PGM-0207.htm

[waterloowarrior]

2011 Vacant Urban Residential Land Survey update
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2012/06-26/15%20-%20ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0157_Urb%20Res%20Land%20Survey.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

Vacant Urban Land Survey 2012 http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2345&doctype=agenda&itemid=303069

Key findings for 2012 include:
• The inventoried supply of vacant urban residential land and its unit potential stood at 2 478 net hectares (ha) and approximately 103 407 units at the end of 2012 compared to 2 093 ha and 88 875 units in December 2011. (These figures include urban land that was added by the Ontario Municipal Board decisions on Official Plan Amendment 76.) This is sufficient for significantly more than the 10 year requirement of the PPS.
• The supply of land serviced with trunk sewers and watermains represents approximately 15 years of supply based on projected demand. This significantly exceeds the requirement of a three year supply of serviced land set out in the PPS.
• The supply of serviced land by area is: Inside the Greenbelt 2.3 years; Kanata/Stittsville 16.4 years; South Nepean 8.6 years; Riverside South 79.9 years; Leitrim 13.0 years; and Orléans 9.7 years.
• The supply of registered and draft approved vacant land with servicing in 2012 (745 ha) represents a 6.5 year supply based on projected demand. This serviced supply exceeds the PPS requirement for a three year supply of serviced registered and draft approved lots.
• Consumption of urban residential land in 2012 totalled 84 net ha, down from 116 ha in 2011, and well below the five year average of 119 ha. Dwelling units constructed on these lands totalled 3 291, down from 4 204 in 2011.
• The average density of housing built on land surveyed in 2012 was 39.1 units per net ha, the highest ever recorded by the survey. The density of single-detached homes edged up to 22.9 units/net ha after falling slightly to 22.3 units/net ha in 2011.

Vacant land supply shares by area:
• Kanata-Stittsville 36%
• Riverside South 19%
• Orléans 20%
• South Nepean 15%
• Leitrim 6%
• Inside the Greenbelt 4%

The 10 largest landowners held 56.2 % of the residential land supply in 2012, down from 61% in 2011. Major owners were Richcraft (9.7%), Urbandale (9.5%), Minto (8.4%), Taggart/Tamarack (5.4%), Mattamy (5.0%), Claridge (4.9%), KNL (4.6%), Ashcroft (3.1%), CRT Developments (3.1%), and Tartan (2.4%). If partnerships are considered, Richcraft and Urbandale together accounted for about 24% of the land supply.

[J.OT13]

Thanks for all your City Hall reports!

[Richard Eade]

Based on the numbers presented, it looks as Riverside South isn’t being developed anywhere near as fast as we are led to believe.

Vacant land supply shares by area:
• Kanata-Stittsville 36%
• Riverside South 19%
• Orléans 20%
• South Nepean 15%
• Leitrim 6%
• Inside the Greenbelt 4%

The supply of serviced land by area:
• KanataStittsville 16.4 years
• Riverside South 79.9 years
• Orléans 9.7 years
• South Nepean 8.6 years
• Leitrim 13.0 years
• Inside the Greenbelt 2.3 years

If you look at most of the given values, the number of years to use up the available land supply is roughly half of the supply area (i.e., 9.7 years for 20% in Orleans; 16.4 years for 36% in Kanata). Leitrim is developing more slowly than suburbs west and east (13 years for 6%). However, it is Riverside South which really stands out. According to the report, it will take almost 80 years to fill its available space (19%). People are flocking to Kanata and Orleans at a rate more than eight times faster!

Of course, there are questions as to why development is so slow in the Riverside South area. Is it because of the poor road connections into the downtown area? Is it because the NS LRT was canceled? Is it because the Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge isn’t completed? Is the neighbourhood lacking too many amenities to draw in people? Is it because people don’t want to live so close to the airport? Are market forced leading the developers to hold-off building in that area?

[waterloowarrior]

Infrastructure/transportation uncertainty and lack of services I think are a big factor. Perhaps there is also a major infrastructure project they need in order to move forward...there are a couple major projects in the draft infrastructure master plan affecting part of the area to be developed.

Land ownership is another factor for Riverside South. It's the most concentrated of all the suburbs. Two developers that frequently partner (Urbandale and Richcraft) own about 80% of the land. They would have the luxury of waiting for their initial phases to mostly sell out before moving onto the next phase.

In any case they only have about 53 ha of serviced registered and draft approved land, but 479 net ha of supply (11% of land has a subdivision plan). The other suburbs have a much higher percentage of serviced land with plans draft approved or registered (e.g. South Nepean 40%, Kanata 60%) So there is a lot of land sitting there with no plan.