Want More Affordable Housing? Deregulate Zoning and Build More.

[Jebby]

Land Use Regulations Block Affordable Housing Development
http://truthinmedia.com/krugman-land...g-development/


Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, a self-described liberal, took an unexpectedly free-market oriented stance on zoning laws and land use restrictions in a Nov. 30 op-ed for The New York Times.

In his article on urban gentrification and affordable housing, Krugman asked rhetorically, “But what about all the people, surely a large majority, who are being priced out of America’s urban revival? Does it have to be that way?”

The answer, surely, is no, at least not to the extent we’re seeing now. Rising demand for urban living by the elite could be met largely by increasing supply. There’s still room to build, even in New York, especially upward. Yet while there is something of a building boom in the city, it’s far smaller than the soaring prices warrant, mainly because land use restrictions are in the way.

“Yes, this is an issue on which you don’t have to be a conservative to believe that we have too much regulation,” added Krugman.

Continue reading: http://truthinmedia.com/krugman-land...g-development/

I'm no fan of Krugman, but he is absolutely right. When government artificially limts supply of any good, the price will rise if there is demand.

What Vancouver needs to do is deregulate land use restrictions, especially in allowing higher densities and mixed-use developments city-wide. Only then will housing prices come down.

[GMasterAres]

Sounds reasonable but playing the other side I'd want to investigate why major cities have such regulations in place to start. There must have been a (or multiple) reason for why cities regular land use so militantly.

I'd worry that doing away with it will solve one issue only to re-introduce another issue, one maybe larger. Also in places like Metro Vancouver, you could very likely have advocacy groups cheer in such de-regulation only to find out the opposite of their desire happened. For example those that want urbanization, dense multi-use developments, could see land across the board de-regulated and sprawl to catch on fire.

So those may then call for de-regulation of mixed use and density but in maintaining other regulations to prevent urban sprawl or the loss of green space and agricultural land. In such a situation though then you're being hypocritical in half-regulating and only regulating things you don't agree with.

Therefor while in principal I think it is a good idea to investigate, I don't think it is that simple and like I said, we'd need to fully understand why restrictions are in place today and what they were put in place to solve so we don't repeat mistakes of the past.

[Vin]

Protecting mountain views from a few arbitrary areas, and keeping certain streets ultra low-density in highly-urban areas to maintain the "village" flavour certainly aren't legitimate rationales for the restrictions. Overzealous maintenance of downtown's dome-shape skyline is also another nonsensical reasoning. For Vancouver, West Broadway, Kitsilano and Olympic Village areas ought to be allowed to go very high density and tall.

The few restrictions I agree upon:
*Protection of heritage zones and buildings (for buildings of real historical values and architecture).
*Park/recreational land protection.
*Certain shadowing restrictions, including street setbacks, etc.
*Flight paths and soft soils.

If Vancouver were to do away with these restrictions, our downtown and urbanity would definitely grow outwards from the peninsula, and that the suburb city centres would not be as robust as they are right now. I'm sure that would also help bring down property price too.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Sounds reasonable but playing the other side I'd want to investigate why major cities have such regulations in place to start. There must have been a (or multiple) reason for why cities regular land use so militantly.

I'd worry that doing away with it will solve one issue only to re-introduce another issue, one maybe larger. Also in places like Metro Vancouver, you could very likely have advocacy groups cheer in such de-regulation only to find out the opposite of their desire happened. For example those that want urbanization, dense multi-use developments, could see land across the board de-regulated and sprawl to catch on fire.

So those may then call for de-regulation of mixed use and density but in maintaining other regulations to prevent urban sprawl or the loss of green space and agricultural land. In such a situation though then you're being hypocritical in half-regulating and only regulating things you don't agree with.

Therefor while in principal I think it is a good idea to investigate, I don't think it is that simple and like I said, we'd need to fully understand why restrictions are in place today and what they were put in place to solve so we don't repeat mistakes of the past.

Exactly, do posters honestly think these regulations just sprang from somebody's whim? They are the result of decades of experience, citizen feedback and health requirements.

Are these posters also arguing for scrapping the ALR? After all, why regulate that as farmland if it can be quickly sold off for housing.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Vin

= For Vancouver, West Broadway, Kitsilano and Olympic areas ought to be allowed to go very high density and tall.

While I agree with much of your post, one thing I definitely do not agree with is that areas such as Kitsilano should go tall. Tall does not mean dense and dense does not have to be tall.

I think outside of a few areas (Downtown, Broadway, Oakridge, Marine Gateway, etc) that buildings should be midrises. You can fit an enormous amount of density with 8-12 story buildings.

Some neighbourhoods don't need skyscrapers and shouldn't have skyscrapers. Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Arbutus come to mind. Midrises with a high FSR would fit those areas much better.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

While I agree with much of your post, one thing I definitely do not agree with is that areas such as Kitsilano should go tall. Tall does not mean dense and dense does not have to be tall.

I think outside of a few areas (Downtown, Broadway, Oakridge, Marine Gateway, etc) that buildings should be midrises. You can fit an enormous amount of density with 8-12 story buildings.

Some neighbourhoods don't need skyscrapers and shouldn't have skyscrapers. Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, Arbutus come to mind. Midrises with a high FSR would fit those areas much better.

Tall is better to avoid a claustophobic environment. You can have shorter buildings with similar densities, but that also mean having short stout towers built practically next to each other, with no views of Vancouver's excellent surroundings whatsoever from the apartment units. Streets are usually way darker and damp for most of those neighbourhoods, and can be pretty depressing for a rainy city like Vancouver. In Europe, it's a different story because the shorter buildings are aesthetically pleasing, or have historical values to make up for the shortcomings. As for Kits, I don't mean the entire area should go tall, but a few important nodes like the 4th Ave. Safeway neighbourhood, or even west Broadway and Burrard area, extending all the way to the Burrard bridge. West Broadway and Granville area should also go really tall. These neighbourhoods ought to go way taller than what we have now.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Exactly, do posters honestly think these regulations just sprang from somebody's whim? They are the result of decades of experience, citizen feedback and health requirements.

Are these posters also arguing for scrapping the ALR? After all, why regulate that as farmland if it can be quickly sold off for housing.

There were couple of decades when Vancouver was known as a hippie town with many folks on pot, crack and heroine, resulting in the economic depression of the 80s, and many from that generation are still making policies and influencing the youths of today. In fact, Vancouver saw more growth (relatively speaking) during the height of the British Empire right till the 70s, when decisions were made by more innovative people of that time. Feats included the tallest building and other engineering breakthroughs and firsts in the entire British empire/commonwealth: The Marine Building, Lions Gate Bridge, Hotel Vancouver, Massey tunnel etc. Today we only look at others with the tallest, like the Burj Kalifa Dubai and exclaim, "Nah, that's not for us, we just want to see mountains and stick with East Hasting's rot." How far we have fallen.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

There were couple of decades when Vancouver was known as a hippie town with many folks on pot, crack and heroine, resulting in the economic depression of the 80s. Vancouver should grow up.

Hmm, and yet most major livable cities have zoning regulations, do they need to grow up too?

PS Crack's not a hippie thing, best brush up on your history.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Hmm, and yet most major livable cities have zoning regulations, do they need to grow up too?

PS Crack's not a hippie thing, best brush up on your history.

I didn't say crack was a hippie thing.

They don't have to "grow up", of course, but then they would have to grapple with the crazy property inflation happening in their cities. Melbourne and Sydney are such examples, but even they are allowing higher densities and going really tall.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

There were couple of decades when Vancouver was known as a hippie town with many folks on pot, crack and heroine, resulting in the economic depression of the 80s, and many from that generation are still making policies and influencing the youths of today...

Uh, yep, you did. You also seem to blame hippies for the recession of the early Eighties.

But good luck with your noble quest to rid planning departments of all those recession-causing crackhead hippies. It seems to be a real problem.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Hmm, and yet most major livable cities have zoning regulations, do they need to grow up too?

Has anyone called for the complete elimination of zoning regulations? The OP certainly doesn't.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Uh, yep, you did. You also seem to blame hippies for the recession of the early Eighties.

But good luck with your noble quest to rid planning departments of all those recession-causing crackhead hippies. It seems to be a real problem.

No kidding.

If you want to live in a city that has the Burj Dubai than why not go live there? We have policies in place for a reason, and those "crackheads" are why we preserved many of the world-renowned greenspaces and ROW's for current and future use.

Truth is the changes Vancouver has seen in the past 20 years have been stark; we have already gone ahead and upzoned land along many corridors and many skyscrapers are sitting on former industrial land. I still adamantly believe there necessary steps to take before rapidly densifying; a) addressing the gross corruption in our real estate market and b) upgrading infrastructure (transportation, water, waste etc)

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

There were couple of decades when Vancouver was known as a hippie town with many folks on pot, crack and heroine, resulting in the economic depression of the 80s, and many from that generation are still making policies and influencing the youths of today. In fact, Vancouver saw more growth (relatively speaking) during the height of the British Empire right till the 70s, when decisions were made by more innovative people of that time. Feats included the tallest building and other engineering breakthroughs and firsts in the entire British empire/commonwealth: The Marine Building, Lions Gate Bridge, Hotel Vancouver, Massey tunnel etc. Today we only look at others with the tallest, like the Burj Kalifa Dubai and exclaim, "Nah, that's not for us, we just want to see mountains and stick with East Hasting's rot." How far we have fallen.

Fascinating. You should be a local history professor.


But in all seriousness, Vancouver is an extremely young city on the world stage. One of the youngest in fact. Do you know what this allows us to do? Learn.

Nobody is perfect, but Vancouver overall has done an excellent job in urban planning. Outside of the city itself, Metro Vancouver's regional town centre strategy is great. The main problem, IMO, is when the province steps in and makes big transportation decisions (among others) that conflict with these carefully developed longer range plans.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Fascinating. You should be a local history professor.


But in all seriousness, Vancouver is an extremely young city on the world stage. One of the youngest in fact. Do you know what this allows us to do? Learn.

Nobody is perfect, but Vancouver overall has done an excellent job in urban planning. Outside of the city itself, Metro Vancouver's regional town centre strategy is great. The main problem, IMO, is when the province steps in and makes big transportation decisions (among others) that conflict with these carefully developed longer range plans.

Overall, the planning's pretty good, but like you said, things can be improved. Certain land-use policies have become pretty stiff and inflexible. The bad policies that persist today are usually to appease/circumvent vocal NGOs demanding the protection of run-down subsidised buildings, viewcone protection that really benefits few, continuation of low density neighbourhoods (as in Commercial/Broadway), etc. These policies should be reviewed and eradicated if necessary. If Vancouver were planned green from the get-go, there wouldn't even be the need for the region to sprawl so wide in the first place.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vin

Overall, the planning's pretty good, but like you said, things can be improved. Certain land-use policies have become pretty stiff and inflexible. The bad policies that persist today are usually to appease/circumvent vocal NGOs demanding the protection of run-down subsidised buildings, viewcone protection that really benefits few, continuation of low density neighbourhoods (as in Commercial/Broadway), etc. These policies should be reviewed and eradicated if necessary. If Vancouver were planned green from the get-go, there wouldn't even be the need for the region to sprawl so wide in the first place.

You're right, those selfish poor people in subsidized housing are getting in the way of some bitchin' starchitecture. Who do they think they are? Are there no workhouses?!

[trofirhen]

The densification process is well underway in metro; Brentwood, Metrotown, etc. But the central theory here is correct: that's all fine and splendid, but still not enough.
Depending on how the densification manifests itself, there could be greater or lesser screams of nimbyism, not only from the West Side, but throughout many parts of Burnaby, New West, elsewhere as you may.
Could anyone provide concrete examples (renders even) of what kinds of development we'd see if greater density was rezoned in? And which districts make best densification candidates.