Interesting articles in the January 2014 issue of The Economist magazine. They analyze the unintended impact of planning policies implemented and intended to control urban sprawl in England. Calgary planners and politicians better take notes until it's too late.
The first article "An Englishman's Home" deals with the overall housing crisis and economic drag it creates.
Quote:
...The lack of housing is an economic drag. About three-quarters of English job growth last year was in London and its hinterlands, but high prices make it hard for people to move there from less favoured spots. It also damages lives. New British homes are smaller than those anywhere else in Europe, household size is rising in London and slums are spreading as immigrants squash into shared houses (and, sometimes, garden sheds). Inequality is growing, because the higher property prices are, the greater the advantage that accrues to those whose parents own their homes.
This is all the result of deliberate policymaking. Since the 1940s house-building in Britain has been regulated by a system designed to prevent urban sprawl, something it has achieved spectacularly well. It is almost impossible to construct any new building anywhere without permission from the local council. In the places where people most want to live—suburbs at the edge of big cities—councils tend not to give it...
|
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...glishmans-home
The second article "Breaking the Stranglehold" analyzes the consequences of NIMBYism and tight political control of land supplies:
Quote:
|
...in such a tight market, deep-pocketed builders prevail. Since 2008 the number of small house builders—those that put up between 10 and 30 units per year—has fallen by 50%. The number of big builders has increased slightly. Weak competition means that builders have little incentive to invest in design, which may explain why new homes are often unlovely. And since these firms often operate as little local monopolies, they rarely cut prices: if prices are not suitably high, they tend to undershoot even the low targets set by councils...
|
http://www.economist.com/news/britai...g-laws-enacted