Hamilton Housing Policy

[King&James]

Omg - hoping someone can help Bloomberg... (btw that policy pitch will never see the light of day, also such a tiny fraction of houses sold)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to introduce a two-year ban on foreign home buyers to tackle housing affordability in Canada if he’s re-elected.

https://www.bnn.ca/1.1643640.1629815853

[ScreamingViking]

What good is policy if your neighbours will get into a tizzy about your plans. And what are they really worried about... "esthetics" (which may depend on the plan -- turning the garage into a unit on the same footprint, enlarging it, adding a floor, etc) or "the lower end of the spectrum"

This is the house in question. The garage is not very visible from the street.


Proposed Hamilton Mountain garage conversion draws wrath of neighbours
Homeowner might not proceed if no buy-in from community

Mark Newman
Hamilton Mountain News, via The Spec
Tue., Feb. 8, 2022

https://www.thespec.com/local-hamilt...eighbours.html

The garage at the back of the house at 38 Rendell Boulevard on the east Mountain is getting a lot of attention these days.

Owned by a couple from Burlington, the garage has been targeted for conversion into a secondary dwelling or apartment rental unit as permitted under city bylaws passed last May.

The owners are also looking to add an apartment within the home.

In November the issue was tabled or put on hold by the Committee of Adjustment (COA) to allow for public consultation.

For many neighbours, the proposed garage conversion is non-starter.

“There must be a better way of supply housing to the area than converting garages into housing,” said Paul Kurpe, who has lived in the area for more than 60 years. “We’re going to turn Hamilton into a shantytown; nobody wants a garage next door converted into a garage.”

Another local resident, Clause Jarvis, said allowing garages to be converted into apartments will ruin the esthetics of the Highview neighbourhood, dominated by single-family homes.

...

Ken Bekendam, the agent for Razborshchuk, said the provincial legislation and bylaw will result in a spike in the number of garage conversions in Hamilton.

“(It’s) driven by the supply crunch of housing,” Bekendam said. “A garage that is converted into a unit is going to definitely be aimed at the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to rentals.

...

full story here

[drpgq]

Rendell is the same area that has people opposing the Upper Ottawa and Fennell development. I feel like people should allow big buildings (relatively) along arterials especially at arterial corners if they don't want garage conversions. Hell the El Mirador is just down the way.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by drpgq

Rendell is the same area that has people opposing the Upper Ottawa and Fennell development. I feel like people should allow big buildings (relatively) along arterials especially at arterial corners if they don't want garage conversions. Hell the El Mirador is just down the way.

It's the opposite. We'll get far more density by allowing garage conversions than tall buildings, and much quicker too.

[Innsertnamehere]

https://twitter.com/RyersonCUR/statu...dLapd1xpwkKfIA

New study out of Ryerson University shows that the city's poll on Urban Boundary Expansion was extremely erroneous in it's methodology and shows that the majority of people within the city are in fact supportive of the urban boundary expansion..

full report here:


https://t.co/QpExJyoPiC

Executive summary of the report:

The November 19, 2021 vote by the City of Hamilton Council not to expand the City's urban boundary to incorporate adjacent greenfield lands is based upon a fallacious understanding of the housing market and the housing demand of its current and future residents.

Council, in its wisdom, is telling its growing population they must mostly live in apartments. Council’s future housing vision collides with the housing aspirations of many existing and future residents.The City of Hamilton conducted a survey of its citizens to determine the desire to intensify Hamilton versus expand its urban growth boundary. Respondents to the recent City Survey of Hamilton residents were not properly informed of what a No Urban Boundary Expansion growth scenario would mean for the kinds of housing built in Hamilton. The scenario will result in most new housing being apartments, with only a smattering of single-detached and other types of ground related homes (semis and townhouses).

The overwhelming support the City Survey results show for the No Urban Boundary Expansion option is deceptive and not representative of the population. The survey was too limited in the options listed, did not represent a random sampling, and there is little doubt that it was hijacked by opponents of urban expansion.

If Council’s decision is not overturned by the Province, the growing shortage of ground related homes will increase housing prices in the city. Existing and future Hamilton residents wanting affordable ground-related houses will increasingly relocate to other fringe municipalities where this housing is available. The resulting longer commutes mean that instead of stopping "sprawl", Hamilton’s Council is simply shifting development to other municipalities. It will also mean Hamilton will not achieve the minimum population forecast the Province has set. Other municipalities will be obliged to pick up the slack.

A prime quote:

The No Urban Boundary Expansion Scenario would result in only 22% of new housing being ground-related housing, compared to 76% under the Market-Based Scenario

It is unfathomable to contemplate that 78% of all new housing built in Hamilton under this scenario would be in the form of apartments when the underlying forecast need is for 76% ground-related housing under the Market-Based Scenario. Furthermore, under this scenario, only 9% of the new housing will be single-detached houses, down from 51% under the Market Based Scenario.

This degree of social engineering simply will not produce the desired result. Instead of being forced by City policy to live in apartments many Hamilton based households will move to other municipalities where they can find the housing they want at a price they can afford.

Another:

Why did Council instruct staff to carry out a flawed household survey rather than a statistically valid sample survey of Hamilton residents?

It is hard to discern the reasoning of individual Council members in instructing staff to conduct the survey as described rather than undertaking more accurate survey techniques as done in the past. They certainly understood the importance of conducting a sample survey in a professional manner.\

As recently as 2019, Council authorized a market research company to undertake a random telephone survey of a sample of Hamiltonians to gather their views on the services provided by the City. See City of Hamilton, Our City Survey 2019 Summary Report. A total of 5,771 responses were received, and the statistical accuracy of the results was calculated.

[ScreamingViking]

Is it just me, or was that study written with a tinge of animosity? It also completely ignores the employment land issue.

While the "no expansion" option is likely to be overturned by the province (and certainly challenged by developers) what it should do is force the city to be more creative in how it allows development within the existing urban boundary. It's not just about apartments vs. ground level housing; it's about making it easier for homeowners to create rental units in their existing dwellings, allowing for forms of intensification we have not seen in the city before (such as laneway houses), "missing middle" multi-unit buildings, re-thinking how parking lots can be used more efficiently and how retail properties can integrate residential use, how disused land can be repurposed into housing and employment, etc.

Seems like there is so much ado at the extremes, and very little being discussed in the middle ground where the actions must be decided.

[TheRitsman]

"Hijacked" what the fuck does that even mean in that context? It was a vote. If I campaign for a specific political person, and I get my friends to as well, does that mean we have hijacked the election?

This study seems to struggle to be objective, which is ironic because this is supposed to be an urban planning oriented school. If people would move to nearby cities with ground related housing that tells me those other cities should be stopping sprawl too, not that Hamilton should.

Add to all of this that dense housing is in massive demand, moreso than ground related housing, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Hamilton decided to be the progressive one for once, and the results of this study are "Hamilton should not be progressive because other cities are not".

[mikevbar1]

What this is getting at is the populace did not understand that a no boundary expansion implies we are going to be building a lot of infill and dense development (condos and apartments) and that was not explicitly stated outright to those who voted. This is at least somewhat accurate, but I mostly ascribe that to the average person not understanding what infill/densification means; It wasn't really a 'slight' by the city. In fact, there is a fair amount of criticism to go around here. I got some words to vomit, so the TLDR is:

A)- Our city somewhat poorly communicated what is already an ambiguous decision, and in some ways a lose-lose situation for those who enjoy the status quo.
B)- Our policies don't reflect this initiative, as last I checked we aren't overhauling zoning, we just chose to freeze the urban boundary. It comes with no real zoning changes or adjustments to our planning and [asinine] development processing.

So, why might people have voted no expansion if they didn't understand it? The reality is this has been greenwashed and made to be about protecting farmland, not an urban planning issue. There is a prevailing sentiment among average folks to take a passive stance to any growth; think "no boundary expansion sounds nice, because sprawl is bad". However, these same people don't want condos, highrises, infill or upzoning or anything like that. Most people, especially these people, just want the status quo. Not to go on a separate tangent, but using Toronto as a case study, regionally NIMBYism is very real, and if we asked people if they were ok with all major corridors being upzoned and having a new condo next door, or to instead allow some suburban expansion (the kind these people probably bought into), that would be a very different vote. Additionally, the city website is a mess which makes finding information a nightmare. And of course, we aren't exactly being led by the most astute council. While our decision looks good on paper, there is frankly no cohesive plan, which is why it all went so smoothly- there was nothing for the public to question or get mad about if it's smoke and mirrors at the top too.

However, this is a symptom of a greater issue, in that this outcome was likely hardly planned for effectively even at the upper levels. This paper makes a conclusion that should have been clear to all of us; our city has not, and likely will not, deliberate the necessary policy changes to make this zero boundary expansion plan work. We could argue that isn't necessary, but is the city just going to sift through every non-conforming application that will inevitably start flooding the planning department? No, eventually the development will follow the path of least resistance and just go elsewhere. Why would our council treat this issue any differently than it does existing ones? I remember how many posters here lauded the city's incompetence around growth and the rampant NIMBYism that is only comparable to Toronto. However, we are not Toronto, which can dictate arbitrary, convoluted policies and see development anyway; they are the mecca driving a foundational demand, even here.

If we want to act like a proper city, we need to follow through on our decisions and orient policies around them to make sure we don't run ourselves into the ground. Where are the calls to further increase density along the B-line LRT? Secondary plans call for shorter midrises along much of the route, with no signs of change. What about zoning changes on Upper James for the A-Line? The rest of BLAST? Where are the proactive plans to actually stimulate this infill development citywide? Furthermore, I am shocked we are all claiming the city is some paragon of communication.

As a disclaimer, I am not opposing this decision or the necessary steps to make it work. In Its current form, however, this decision was made in typical Hamilton style; little planning basis and heavy ambiguity looking forward. I would like nothing more than to see a progressive zoning reform citywide to make 80% of the future ~300,000 Hamiltonians live within the boundary. However, this has not happened, and it frankly was probably not on the minds of voters or councillors. In fact, with this paper, I am quite worried about what this means for Hamilton because it just gives ammo for Doug to override our boundary decision.

[TheRitsman]

The city is actually looking at changing zoning and land use plans.

[catcher_of_cats]

We will get denser because we must but this entire exercise was based on the province changing the amount of time that the municipalities plan into their future. The land that the local developers wanted to develop will be developed by them, just not as soon or in the form that they would like .

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

In fact, with this paper, I am quite worried about what this means for Hamilton because it just gives ammo for Doug to override our boundary decision.

And I have to wonder if that was the point. Did Clayton (who is a respected academic) do this of his own volition, or was he asked by someone? Not that Dougie actually needs justification for his government's decisions.

The politics behind all this -- those for expansion, and those against -- is thick and murky.

[TheRitsman]

Halton also just voted to not expand the urban boundary as well. Hamilton and Halton together against the province means there's a lot more to stand against Dougler.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

Halton also just voted to not expand the urban boundary as well. Hamilton and Halton together against the province means there's a lot more to stand against Dougler.

This might give our decisions more legitimacy, but Halton, as a region, is not exactly a pallbearer of progressive land-use planning. From sprawling Milton to the NIMBY leaders in Burlington, I struggle to have faith they will intensify effectively either. Specifically, altering plans to actually allocate new higher-density zoning besides what is already the minimum required of them by the province. Oakville does an ok job of staying on top of plans, but as far as I am aware It's mostly for the Newer north end.

What is the next stage of this without wide-scale change? I suppose if we all stop sprawling, developers with land will have to build somewhere in the west side of the GTHA...
Edit: I am assuming existing zoning capacity (housing policy) is insufficient.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

This might give our decisions more legitimacy, but Halton, as a region, is not exactly a pallbearer of progressive land-use planning. From sprawling Milton to the NIMBY leaders in Burlington, I struggle to have faith they will intensify effectively either. Specifically, altering plans to actually allocate new higher-density zoning besides what is already the minimum required of them by the province. Oakville does an ok job of staying on top of plans, but as far as I am aware It's mostly for the Newer north end.

What is the next stage of this without wide-scale change? I suppose if we all stop sprawling, developers with land will have to build somewhere in the west side of the GTHA...
Edit: I am assuming existing zoning capacity (housing policy) is insufficient.

There have already been calls to change restrictive zoning such as removing parking minimums. I see large slave developers moving to shift away from large scale subdivisions and into highrises, mid-rises and assisting homeowners who want to redevelop properties to multi-unit dwellings.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

"Hijacked" what the fuck does that even mean in that context? It was a vote. If I campaign for a specific political person, and I get my friends to as well, does that mean we have hijacked the election?

This study seems to struggle to be objective, which is ironic because this is supposed to be an urban planning oriented school. If people would move to nearby cities with ground related housing that tells me those other cities should be stopping sprawl too, not that Hamilton should.

Add to all of this that dense housing is in massive demand, moreso than ground related housing, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Hamilton decided to be the progressive one for once, and the results of this study are "Hamilton should not be progressive because other cities are not".

I agree the author here has taken quite an editorialist tone to the article, which isn't exactly professional, but the research seems generally sound.

The critique of it is more on the opinions of the general public on the issue, not the right vs wrong of the issue itself. The author argues that people's desires for housing and statistically accurate polling indicates strong support for expanding the boundary, not the other way around.

I think their points of "sprawl shifting" are valid as well - people will move to buy the product they want, creating less ideal situations. Like it or not trying to fight the market infinitely is a somewhat futile exercise.

We also have to remember that this discussion is also not nearly as black and white as many make it out to be - even the "sprawl" option council was considering and which the PCs are likely to enforce on the City involves roughly double the current intensification rate and is still far below market demand for unit types.



No urban boundary expansion means roughly 80% of new units will be apartments, which means that for new homebuyers ground related housing will quickly become a luxury good for only the absolute wealthiest. if only 22% of new housing production is ground related, that means that only the top 22% of incomes will be able to afford it. Is a society where executives live in townhouses really one we are planning for?

That drives back to the fact that it will drive growth away from Hamilton as well. Those executives will simply choose to live in Haldimand County instead where they can buy a 3 acre lot with a massive house on it for the same price of what a new build townhouse will go for in Hamilton, instead of a new build detached in Elfrida if urban expansion had gone forward.

I'm as big a supporter of intensification and density as anyone on these boards, and am not arguing for a full market-based solution here. We can use planning tools to push the housing market in ways we want it to go, but people ultimately vote with their feet and I fear that Hamilton essentially banning new ground related housing will do nothing but push people away.

Forcing the housing market to contort massively by restricting supply of ground related housing to an almost insane degree is not going to be the panacea for quality of life of residents that most here seem to think, it'll do nothing but force down fertility rates and force growth elsewhere where people can build the kind of life they want for themselves, which generally isn't raising 2 kids in an 800sf 2-bed apartment on Rymal Road without a car.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

There have already been calls to change restrictive zoning such as removing parking minimums. I see large slave developers moving to shift away from large scale subdivisions and into highrises, mid-rises and assisting homeowners who want to redevelop properties to multi-unit dwellings.

They aren't going to switch over, they will just leave the city for greener pastures, so to speak. They have the money they can invest wherever it's easiest for them to do so. Money is easily transferred so developers can pick up and move to wherever they find it easiest to do what they want. If that means they move to a different province or even country they will do so.

[Innsertnamehere]

developers go where money is to be made - if it's profitable to build no parking apartment buildings, developers will do that.

The question of if it's profitable is if there will be buyers willing to buy it at the cost it takes to build it. That's the bigger question.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

They aren't going to switch over, they will just leave the city for greener pastures, so to speak. They have the money they can invest wherever it's easiest for them to do so. Money is easily transferred so developers can pick up and move to wherever they find it easiest to do what they want. If that means they move to a different province or even country they will do so.

I and many advocates don't care. Hamilton shouldn't do environmentally regressive things just because other cities do it. Hamilton advocates and residents can't complain that Hamilton refuses to lead on anything, and then when it finally decides to lead, complain too. I'm glad Hamilton is moving forward on progressive policies, like protecting farmland, and increasing density in the existing city, and reviewing land use planning to work with that existing boundary. As a Hamilton resident I don't want my taxes to keep going up to pay for suburbanites to live further and further from services on sprawling asphalt streets when we've got plenty next to vacant lots that need to be maintained anyway, and aren't paving farmland and encouraging more car oriented developments in a climate emergency.

[drpgq]

I would be curious to know what percentage of survey voters live in single detached homes. Or hope to live in a single detached home. There just seems to be so much hypocrisy around this issue.

[ScreamingViking]

This dovetails with the discussion of 'tiny homes' for the homeless downtown. I think the idea for that, and this, make a lot of sense. I'd hope there are several of these kinds of little communities spread around the city though, and not just clustered in one area.

https://homesforheroesfoundation.ca/about-us/


Homes For Heroes: Charity wants to build village for homeless military vets in Hamilton
Organization seeks acre of land for 20 tiny homes

https://www.thespec.com/news/hamilto...-veterans.html

Teviah Moro
The Hamilton Spectator
Thu., March 3, 2022


The Alberta-based charity has built villages for veterans experiencing homelessness in Edmonton and Calgary.
JEFF MCINTOSH / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO


A charity that builds tiny homes for military veterans struggling to stay off the street hopes to establish a village in Hamilton.

Homes For Heroes Foundation is asking the city or province to donate an acre of land for the village.

“And we would like some investment by both parties into the build itself,” president Dave Howard said.

The Alberta-based charity has built villages for veterans experiencing homelessness in Edmonton and Calgary.

More recently, the Ontario government provided provincially owned land for a future community in Kingston.

The villages include 20 modular homes that are under 300 square feet, recreation space, gardens and a counselling office.

“We’ve identified 100-plus veterans in need in Hamilton,” said Howard, noting the ballpark figure draws on information from Veterans Affairs Canada.

They could be in various degrees of homelessness, including on the street, couch-surfing or precariously housed in rooming houses, he said.

A 2016 study flagged homelessness among veterans as a “growing concern in Canada.”

Of 697,400 veterans, roughly 2,950 were shelter users; they made up 2.2 per cent of the homeless population, noted the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness paper by Stephen Gaetz, Erin Dej, Tim Richter and Melanie Redman.

Referencing a 2011 study, the paper identified addiction, mental health, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and trouble transitioning to civilian life as principle factors.

“We want our veterans to be part of a community,” said Howard, explaining this involvement as a key element to securing permanent housing.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said his office met with Homes For Heroes in recent months to hear the charity’s pitch, which he called “very viable.”

Eisenberger said city staff are looking for potential sites, but no presentation has been made to council.

“If we were to land on something,” staff would make a formal report, he added.

Howard said Homes For Heroes would provide on-site counselling to support the veterans, who would pay around $600 a month to rent the small homes and contribute to the village’s operation.

For each village, the organization puts $500,000 into a reserve fund for repairs and maintenance, he noted.