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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

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]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

.

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 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?

• 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.

• 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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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
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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

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

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Sounds like CFRA's target demographic

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...1809069454.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...0Amendment.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.