Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me
But then isn't the development pattern we see reflective of the intersection of what the market wants and what the market can afford?
Like, I think most people would love a large home, large property, but close to amenities ( like this)... But very few can afford that, so the compromise dictated by the general population is detached homes and power centres... Not ideal, but the best (most) people have available to them.
This is why I don't think blanket upzoning is the solution... It doesn't address what the market actually wants and overshoots what's already underutilized for redevelopment. |
Well, what people can afford changes over time, and where that intersection exists changes as well.
The compromise isn’t dictated by the general population alone, and the point being made here is that the current compromise is unsustainable. It’s becoming less affordable, more environmentally damaging, and more costly overall.
I myself would sacrifice a detached home for something central, it just wasn’t in the cards. There are not enough properties to meet demand, so prices have grown beyond an accessible level. Hell, my current property is absolutely not worth what I could sell it for, but I could list it tomorrow and have a buyer by Monday. That’s not because I live in the most in-demand property of all time. And if all people wanted was a detached home near a power centre, they could buy a new one for cheaper than they’re going to pay me for my 40+ year old home, they just have to live another 10-15 minutes further away.
More options increased affordability across the board, or at very least holds the line while the population increases.
If there is no demand for the properties that would be available with up-zoning, developers will not build them. So why are people worried about up-zoning?l not addressing what the market wants? At worst, it has no negative impact at all, at best, it has a positive impact.