MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm glad I did, because man is that New Zealand graphic compelling. In summary - Auckland did a big upzoning. Immediately after multi-family construction had a huge increase and rents flat-lined. They compare to Wellington (same country, no upzoning) and the difference seems pretty obvious.

Auckland having a 25% premium in median rent in 2016 might have just been because it had a housing market boom first. In 2010 the premium against Wellington was much smaller, about the same as it is now after Wellington also had a housing boom.

And rents didn't flat-lined, Auckland rents were about $480 in November 2016 and are now about $640, Auckland rental growth rate has been pretty consistent for more than a decade. The rest of the country having higher growth in rental and housing prices is probably just the "Toronto/Vancouver" effect as residents and investors look elsewhere because prices got too high in Auckland.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Auckland having a 25% premium in median rent in 2016 might have just been because it had a housing market boom first. In 2010 the premium against Wellington was much smaller, about the same as it is now after Wellington also had a housing boom.

And rents didn't flat-lined, Auckland rents were about $480 in November 2016 and are now about $640, Auckland rental growth rate has been pretty consistent for more than a decade. The rest of the country having higher growth in rental and housing prices is probably just the "Toronto/Vancouver" effect as residents and investors look elsewhere because prices got too high in Auckland.

Should have said flat in real terms (ie inflation adjusted).

Personally, I think a big increase in supply of something is likely to make the price of that something lower than it otherwise would be.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I listened to a Calgary councillor on radio today he said the only thing they agreed on was to look at this so the Federal funding wouldn’t stop for now. He said this zoning is a long way from seeing the light of day and when 400k residence get a notice in the mail of this he would be very surprised if it passes.

I would put money on Greg McLean.

One of my favourite parts of the hearing was when Craig Chandler (!) called in to support the affordable housing strategy and he and Greg McLean got in a bit of a tiff.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Torture

I would put money on Greg McLean.

One of my favourite parts of the hearing was when Craig Chandler (!) called in to support the affordable housing strategy and he and Greg McLean got in a bit of a tiff.

Greg McLean is the Calgary-Centre MP. You're thinking of Dan McLean, Ward 13 councilor.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Greg McLean is the Calgary-Centre MP. You're thinking of Dan McLean, Ward 13 councilor.

Too many McLean's. I guess I just lost a bunch of money.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1703891654326018394

[TorqueDog]

Best part is the top reply I saw to that tweet:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1703893317501718601

"AND Taxpayers Pay MORE taxes for all the Infrastructure Upgrades to meet density stress!"

No, you f-cking dumb-ass. We pay more taxes to sprawl the city out to build net-new infrastructure, it is far cheaper to leverage and upgrade existing infrastructure in built-up parts of the city.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Torture

Too many McLean's. I guess I just lost a bunch of money.

As a ward 13 resident, I'll be selfless and offer up Dan as the McLean-to-go.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I had to use an archive to read that: https://archive.ph/jHP47

I'm glad I did, because man is that New Zealand graphic compelling. In summary - Auckland did a big upzoning. Immediately after multi-family construction had a huge increase and rents flat-lined. They compare to Wellington (same country, no upzoning) and the difference seems pretty obvious.

That’s pretty impressive that the affects are seen within 2-3 years. I’d have guessed that it would take a decade to make a meaningful difference.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So it might increase affordability and density?

I think let's stick with affordability because this was an affordable housing policy.

First, if the best possible outcome is a minor impact, it's not necessarily worth the loss of certainty. Say there's 1,000 homes in a neighborhood and as a result of blanket R-CG you get two duplexes, one townhouse and 997 single family homes. Are those additional 5 dwellings worth creating uncertainty for 1,000 families? What if no duplexes or townhouses got built; was it worth creating uncertainty for 1,000 families then?

Secondly, even if it does work, it does little for affordability. Subdividing a $1.5m lot in Elbow Park to build a duplex that sells for $1.7m...is that helping affordablility? Probably not. And if instead a developer developed townhomes, they sell for $1.1m each. Again, does nothing for affordability.

Third, let's assume it's going to have a minimal impact in the most likely scenario. And even in the best case scenario, the duplexes and townhomes created in these neighborhoods won't be affordable. So why address it under an affordable housing legislation?

It's really tough to argue that extending the blanket to all neighborhoods is about affordability. You can do it and pretend you believe it, but it's pretty disingenuous.

Is there a need for blanket R-CG for some communities? Yes.
Does it make sense to extend it to every neighborhood? No

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Secondly, even if it does work, it does little for affordability. Subdividing a $1.5m lot in Elbow Park to build a duplex that sells for $1.7m...is that helping affordablility? Probably not. And if instead a developer developed townhomes, they sell for $1.1m each. Again, does nothing for affordability.

If you increase the supply of something, you reduce its price. That's just how it work.

Also, when people move into new housing, even if it's expensive, wherever they were living before becomes available. The article linked above discusses, including citations to research on the topic.

One argument is that only by building affordable housing can you increase affordability. Market-rate dwellings will simply go to people on higher incomes, leaving lower earners high and dry. But recent studies from the US, Sweden and Finland all demonstrate that although most people who move directly into new unsubsidised housing may come from the top half of earners, the chain of moves triggered by their purchase frees up housing in the same cities for people on lower incomes.

The US study found that building 100 new market-rate dwellings ultimately leads to up to 70 people moving out of below-median income neighbourhoods, and up to 40 moving out of the poorest fifth. Those numbers don’t budge even if the new housing is priced towards the top end of the market.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you increase the supply of something, you reduce its price. That's just how it work.

Also, when people move into new housing, even if it's expensive, wherever they were living before becomes available. The article linked above discusses, including citations to research on the topic.

The studies sound promising. But what about Houston? I brought them up earlier as a city that had actually done this, and they have had the same challenges as everyone else. I think this is presented as a panacea, but in reality it's extremely difficult.

And really, Gull Foss gives a good example of the type of savings you could reasonably anticipate in a community like Elbow Park. You move the needle from say $1.7m all the way down to like $1.2m. It's not actually helping the vulnerable and students.

[Roughneck]

What about Houston? It’s a city that doesn’t have zoning but instead has ordinances and deed restrictions and a bunch of other ‘not zoning restrictions but mechanisms that achieve the same thing. You’re not going to get much affordable housing built when you still enforce high parking minimums that add $40-70K cost per unit or when people can challenge and bog down development permits with complaints regarding all the ordinances they feel are being skirted.

Houston just shows that simply saying you have less restrictive zoning doesn’t mean much of anything and there’s a lot more layers to what needs to be done. Which is why the blanket RC-G zoning change is just one part of a long list of changes the city is making.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What about Houston? It’s a city that doesn’t have zoning but instead has ordinances and deed restrictions and a bunch of other ‘not zoning restrictions but mechanisms that achieve the same thing. You’re not going to get much affordable housing built when you still enforce high parking minimums that add $40-70K cost per unit or when people can challenge and bog down development permits with complaints regarding all the ordinances they feel are being skirted.

Houston just shows that simply saying you have less restrictive zoning doesn’t mean much of anything and there’s a lot more layers to what needs to be done. Which is why the blanket RC-G zoning change is just one part of a long list of changes the city is making.

Ok, so is there a city that's actually taken the approach we are and shows some progress?

[Roughneck]

Minneapolis is still early into their similar housing strategy and early signs are showing promise.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, so is there a city that's actually taken the approach we are and shows some progress?

If you follow the link Bizzaro posted it had two examples of Aukland and Minniapolis where housing costs rose less than peers.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Minneapolis is still early into their similar housing strategy and early signs are showing promise.

Originally Posted by GGG

If you follow the link Bizzaro posted it had two examples of Aukland and Minniapolis where housing costs rose less than peers.

In terms of success for Minneapolis how much can be attributed to policy changes and how much to population changes? If I'm not mistaken the population saw a decrease in 2018/19 and is growing at a much slower rate than similar cities.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If you increase the supply of something, you reduce its price. That's just how it work.

Also, when people move into new housing, even if it's expensive, wherever they were living before becomes available. The article linked above discusses, including citations to research on the topic.

The more I have this debate the more I realize how hard it is to convince somebody with facts when they've already made up their mind based on feelings. Like, I literally just posted the article which references studies in Auckland and Minneapolis. It literally talks about cases like Elbow Park, etc in there, that yes, some high priced homes will be made, but that increased supply still helps.

One argument is that only by building affordable housing can you increase affordability. Market-rate dwellings will simply go to people on higher incomes, leaving lower earners high and dry.
But recent studies from the US, Sweden and Finland all demonstrate that although most people who move directly into new unsubsidised housing may come from the top half of earners, the chain of moves triggered by their purchase frees up housing in the same cities for people on lower incomes.

Want to go dispute that? Fine, read the multiple papers that are cited and tell me where they got it wrong but this "what about Elbow Park / Houston / wherever" is tiring.

People that study planning and urban studies have across the board said policies like this are beneficial. Are they the silver bullet, no, they're part of a solution. (just like this strategy). Want to dispute that it doesn't work? Fine, but bring some stronger arguments.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

In terms of success for Minneapolis how much can be attributed to policy changes and how much to population changes? If I'm not mistaken the population saw a decrease in 2018/19 and is growing at a much slower rate than similar cities.

The study compared it to cities with similar population trends but different rates of new housing approval (Omaha, Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis, Kansas City)

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you follow the link Bizzaro posted it had two examples of Aukland and Minniapolis where housing costs rose less than peers.

In fairness it was Torture who posted it, I just linked a non-paywall version so others could read it.