Latte Sipping, YOP Gobbling Urban Planning Megathread

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

To better illustrate my point, population growth in Edmonton has been as robust as it has been in Calgary in the last 10 years; but there is no service lot shortage there. Municipal policies are not growth prohibitive and the number of active developers there is substantially higher than in Calgary,

According to Statistics Canada

2001 - 2011 Calgary grew 27.6% in population.
2001 - 2011 Edmonton grew 23.6% in population.

So actually Calgary grew considerably (17%) faster than Edmonton, and with a higher baseline to start with as well. Those "growth prohibitive" policies really seem to be slowing us down.

[CaptainYooh]

You can read whatever they publish, it doesn't matter. I am well aware of the report you are referring to. The reality is very different. All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe. Even Bunk, who doesn't agree with me on this issue, has conceded that there is a serviced lot shortage, although he blames the developers for it.

In Edmonton, builders can purchase all the lots they want from a variety of sources.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You can read whatever they publish, it doesn't matter. I am well aware of the report you are referring to. The reality is very different. All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe. Even Bunk, who doesn't agree with me on this issue, has conceded that there is a serviced lot shortage, although he blames the developers for it.

In Edmonton, builders can purchase all the lots they want from a variety of sources.

Considering the developers own that land, and are responsible for the building of the roads and utilities, I'm not exactly sure how it could be the city's fault if there aren't enough "ready to build" lots. The city has the utility mains to where they need to be, now it's up to the land owners (developers) to take it from there.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You can read whatever they publish, it doesn't matter. I am well aware of the report you are referring to. The reality is very different. All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe. Even Bunk, who doesn't agree with me on this issue, has conceded that there is a serviced lot shortage, although he blames the developers for it.

So the City should make sure there is enough serviced land for any interested party to buy? I thought the more important role for the City was to ensure that development to accommodate the needs of the city can take place and in an orderly/sustainable fashion.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

All homebuilders in Calgary without exception would like to buy more serviced lots than there is available for sale. There are no lots available for sale, period. All available lots are 100% committed to the "lucky" homebuilders. When the ability to purchase a permitted product on the market is severely restricted, it constitutes a product shortage. In Calgary, this shortage is severe.

A shortage only occurs at a given price. If the price for developed lots were to go up (as it would be expected to, in the scenario you've described) then market allocation would no longer be based on "luck".

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

... The city has the utility mains to where they need to be, now it's up to the land owners (developers) to take it from there.

No, it doesn't, unfortunately. That's the thing.

Originally Posted by Addick

So the City should make sure there is enough serviced land for any interested party to buy?..

Technically, yes. Builders don't buy lots for the sake of stocking up their lot inventories but ONLY because there is pent-up demand for the homes they can build on those lots. When the lots are unavailable or too expensive, the prices of new homes go up forcing the newcomers and people that are on the market for a new home to look elsewhere. This elsewhere becomes either a more affordable multi-family home (not by choice but by price) or satellite communities, where they leave their taxes.

The City doesn't develop residential lots in Calgary (some municipalities do in the jurisdicitions with slow or no economic growth). Developers do it themselves. The City is responsible to supply major services to the new lands in the timely manner. It is fully paid to do that, btw.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

No, it doesn't, unfortunately. That's the thing.

So, you disagree with the statement I posted that is a joint press release of the Calgary Home Builder's Association and the City?

Sorry, both "sides" agree that there is plenty of serviced land.

[CaptainYooh]

Yes.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Builders don't buy lots for the sake of stocking up their lot inventories but ONLY because there is pent-up demand for the homes they can build on those lots.

Builders are engaging in speculation, which carries the risk of speculating incorrectly. Just because it makes financial sense for a builder to develop their land does not mean it is economically, and socially, viable for the City to have that land developed. When the land is fully developed and the builder takes their profit or losses to the bank the City is responsible for that land. Consequently, it is their prerogative to organize the development of lands that they will have to deal with so as to minimize their risk and prevent any problematic/unsustainable scenarios.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This elsewhere becomes either a more affordable multi-family home (not by choice but by price) or satellite communities, where they leave their taxes.

I'd love to live in an apartment mansion in Chelsea right down the street from an underground line that is fully automated but I'm limited by price. Is my situation untenable?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

The City doesn't develop residential lots in Calgary (some municipalities do in the jurisdicitions with slow or no economic growth). Developers do it themselves. The City is responsible to supply major services to the new lands in the timely manner. It is fully paid to do that, btw.

It is also responsible to supply these lands in an economically sustainable manner.

[CaptainYooh]

Sorry, Addick, none of the three points you've made above are valid. They are either inaccurate or presumtpious. Judging by the quotation in your signature, you are not really open to the arguments on the business and economics of the signle-family and multi-family housing. Not sure if further discussion would be helpful or worthwhile. I accept the fact that you don't like suburban development. What you need to accept in order for this debate to be interesting, is that I don't advocate for bad suburban development or against good multi-family inner-city development. Otherwise, we're both just wasting time.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

In Edmonton, builders can purchase all the lots they want from a variety of sources.

Are you going to address the fact that you were wrong in saying Edmonton and Calgary are growing at the same rate? Or is that statistic something you disagree with as well, based on... well, apparently, based apparently on the idea that how you perceive things to be must be the truth. Not unlike your claims that there aren't enough lots to go 'round despite the City *and* the builders saying otherwise.

Also, you seem to confuse an oligopoly with a shortage. I agree that since a limited number of interested parties have preferential access to lots, prices go up, but that's not a "shortage", that's more like unspoken collusion. Houses out in the satellite communities are not less expensive because lots here are expensive, houses there are cheaper because people don't want to pay the same price as in the city for an inferior location. Cost of land and building the houses has little to do with the price to buy, it is a question of maximizing profit by selling at the price point where people will buy all your inventory and not seek out other alternatives.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by jammies

Are you going to address the fact that you were wrong in saying Edmonton and Calgary are growing at the same rate? Or is that statistic something you disagree with as well, based on... well, apparently, based apparently on the idea that how you perceive things to be must be the truth. Not unlike your claims that there aren't enough lots to go 'round despite the City *and* the builders saying otherwise.

Also, you seem to confuse an oligopoly with a shortage. I agree that since a limited number of interested parties have preferential access to lots, prices go up, but that's not a "shortage", that's more like unspoken collusion. Houses out in the satellite communities are not less expensive because lots here are expensive, houses there are cheaper because people don't want to pay the same price as in the city for an inferior location. Cost of land and building the houses has little to do with the price to buy, it is a question of maximizing profit by selling at the price point where people will buy all your inventory and not seek out other alternatives.

Your stats are skewed, because of the time period. In my earlier post I referred to the most recent 10 years (2003-2013). If this stat was available (it is not yet, I think), the two growth rates would be much closer.

I disagree with the highlighted statement in your second paragraph. Increasing costs of land and construction drive the prices up when the demand is there.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Sorry, Addick, none of the three points you've made above are valid. They are either inaccurate or presumtpious. Judging by the quotation in your signature, you are not really open to the arguments on the business and economics of the signle-family and multi-family housing. Not sure if further discussion would be helpful or worthwhile. I accept the fact that you don't like suburban development. What you need to accept in order for this debate to be interesting, is that I don't advocate for bad suburban development or against good multi-family inner-city development. Otherwise, we're both just wasting time.

If you actually understood my signature you would realize that it is about providing options/choices rather than maintaining the status quo system that fails to do so. It is not that I don't like suburban development but rather I dislike the system that is built to provide only one type of development.

You call my points 'inaccurate or presumptuous' and state that I'm not 'open to the arguments on the business and economics of the single-family and multi-family housing' yet you are only focusing on the private market. Why don't you comment on the rationality of the City providing a free-for-all system that benefits one group at the expense of the tax-paying public to whom it is responsible? I guess trying to incorrectly identify my beliefs is easier...

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

... It is not that I don't like suburban development but rather I dislike the system that is built to provide only one type of development...

This. You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

Thinking and perceptions about what is a good place to live are changing and more people are becoming more open to the idea of living in a multi-family home. The market and the industry will respond accordingly and introduce more MF homes that are nicer, bigger, more family-oriented etc., there is no doubt about that. But only to satisfy the demand, not politician's directions and ideas.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I disagree with the highlighted statement in your second paragraph. Increasing costs of land and construction drive the prices up when the demand is there.

Housing price drives cost of land far more than the cost of land drives housing price.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

This. You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was result of embracing a planning philosophy/ideology that wasn't sustainable. The planning system was, and still is in many aspects, designed to accommodate one type of development and prevent others. Planning codes and regulations have had a massive impact and continue to do so today. It's easy to build the Evergreens and Somersets but a Garrison Woods or McKenzie Towne?

Undoubtedly, many people want a SFH with a big backyard but this isn't what's driving development, it's a poor planning system that when fixed will probably still pump out tons of have single family homes. If home builders are so up for letting the market decide why don't we abandon the current planning system? The City would simply provide infrastructure and service standards that interested developers/home builders would have to meet. Would the urban form be the same in this environment?

[GGG]

One thing wrong with this city is developers only sell to builders. In Saskatoon, a portion of the lots were reserved for the direct purhcase by individuals. As a result if you were willing to be your own general contractor you could save a hundred thousand dollars on the cost of your new house.

Here you are forced to deal with a builder if you want to live in a new community.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You and some other posters aggressively attacking the suburban development in Calgary seem to imply that there is a "system", some kind of an established conspiracy that has been forcing its choice on calgarians when it comes to housing. It is what it is because of what people wanted to buy.

This is one of the great fallacies of the homebuilder/UDI argument. Lower prices on suburban homes vs. urban homes show that suburban is an inferior good (don't get mad, it's a technical term). It is not what people want, but what they can afford. Furthermore, when consumers choose suburban over urban, they're making that choice based on the subsidized price.

If the government were to put a tax on chocolate ice cream and a rebate for vanilla, people would buy more vanilla - perhaps even if they prefer chocolate. It doesn't make sense to then point to the sales of vanilla and claim that it's outselling chocolate because people prefer it, and therefore for people to get what they want we should maintain the subsidy - but that's effectively what you (and the homebuilders/UDI) are claiming when it comes to single-family housing.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

It wasn't a conspiracy, it was result of embracing a planning philosophy/ideology that wasn't sustainable. The planning system was, and still is in many aspects, designed to accommodate one type of development and prevent others. Planning codes and regulations have had a massive impact and continue to do so today. It's easy to build the Evergreens and Somersets but a Garrison Woods or McKenzie Towne?

Undoubtedly, many people want a SFH with a big backyard but this isn't what's driving development, it's a poor planning system that when fixed will probably still pump out tons of have single family homes. If home builders are so up for letting the market decide why don't we abandon the current planning system? The City would simply provide infrastructure and service standards that interested developers/home builders would have to meet. Would the urban form be the same in this environment?

Planning science is evolving though. It is not an absolute science, like math or physics, and it is evolving within the realities of the locale, for sure. I like your second paragraph, actually! Take it one step further. How do you see the role of a planner (planning department) in a large municipality? How they should and shouldn't affect municipal development? Can you tell what's right? Do you know?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Your stats are skewed, because of the time period. In my earlier post I referred to the most recent 10 years (2003-2013). If this stat was available (it is not yet, I think), the two growth rates would be much closer.

So your argument is that unverifiable information is superior to verifiable? That's certainly a unique perspective to bring.