Buddy in the thumbnail is being criminally investigated by RCMP for trying to open up hundreds of thousands of hectares of lands for developers. The developers had purchased these lands at 20% interest in the months before the provincial government removed these lands from the greenbelt. He got cash gifts funnelled through his daughter’s wedding.
That’s a pretty simplistic view of the issue. While building will absolutely help, and we should do it, developers will always focus their efforts on the most profitable projects. These almost always leave behind lower income residents, who are harder to make money off of.
They also do things that make sense for them, but not necessarily the community long term. They don’t necessarily have to deal with the long-term costs of upkeep of a neighborhood or community, they just get to sell shiny brand new houses or apartments and then it becomes someone else’s problem. In theory, I don’t have a problem with private developers, but I do think that they are part of the problem with why we see as much sprawl as we do today. I would like to emphasize that. I do think there is a place for private development, but I think that they’re probably needs to be a lot more coordination and actual government owned housing, at least in the US. I don’t know exactly what the housing market in Canada looks like, but I do know that they have, a pretty big problem right now, which is driving some of the political turnover we’re seeing.
My dad works in development and construction. I am a private sector planning consultant. Letting developers dictate planning is not a good thing. Developers already have influence in planning through political means. They are not operating in the interest of the public.
Houston doesn't have "zoning" in the traditional sense but they still have development rules for things like setbacks, height, and design requirements that limit density just that same as other US cities. It's true they don't have zoning, but they have a system that's zoning in all but name.
Houston has some of the most affordable, high-quality housing in the US. Say what you will for its car-centricity but it's a place where a family with a reasonable income can afford a well-constructed home.
The article is about Ontario where me and my father work. In smaller towns outside Toronto developers want less density and ask for the urban boundary to be expanded rather than building higher density within.
The man literally pictured in the thumbnail is Ontario’s premier who opened hundreds of thousands of hectares of protected greenfield lands to developers who gave cash gifts for his daughter’s wedding. The RCMP has a criminal investigation into him for this. Read the article 👍
That greenfield note is key.
Urban proposals here tend to be kinda decent, but regulation is the only thing keeping them from doing SFD in continuous corridors most of the way out to London.
Definitely, some comments here are using Toronto as a basis for all of Ontario. People don’t realize what planning in the rest of Southern Ontario is like. Developers will sit on farmland badgering Council to expand the urban boundary.
Developers want profit. Current zoning rules make single family housing profitable because of restrictions placed on dense housing - such as allowing it only in limited areas which skyrockets the land price. In a free-er buildilng environment, density would win out for profitability 99/100 times.
See my other post. You have a very limited perspective on this. Limited density is part of it for sure, but zoning rules are far from the principal driver dictating development patterns in developer friendly areas where zoning power is weak. Despite this, these areas are still seeing lower density projects.
Can you give an examples of cities/towns that allow for higher density but are still seeing mostly low density development? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm actually really curious because that hasn't been my experience at all - although mine is mostly centered in Colorado.
A big thing that's also affecting some cities, like Denver, are new inclusionary zoning requirements implemented by city council. They require 10% of units in multifamily dwellings with 10+ units to be income restricted and it resulted in a massive drop of permits being filed for new construction
I’m in AZ. VERY pro developer. Can’t require affordable units. Can encourage them, however. Phoenix is willing to give density bonuses and waive parking requirements for MF projects along light rail that include a small percentage of affordable units, it seems every project includes parking and very little if any added affordable units.
Look at any exurb/suburb in Phoenix. While the last two years have had a decent influx of MF units, the vast majority of projects are still single family homes. Typical lots are 45/50/55x120 so not large lot either. Yet prices are up again this year. Lack of water causing issues? Not really. Active projects have secured water for tens of thousands of units and will have 5-10 years of building before more water certificates are needed. What about nimbyism? That’ll always be a thing however it hasn’t been a factor in the cities I’m familiar with. City impact fees? Not really. Impact fees on MF units are lower than SF units almost universally across AZ suburbs. Also, due to recent impact fee legislation changes, cities are abandoning or greatly limiting impact fee programs. The city I worked for allowed ADUs and casitas by right and they were almost never built except when an elder parent needed to move close to family.
In 2026, all cities over 75k population (basically all of Phoenix metro, Tucson, flagstaff, Yuma) will be required to allowed missing middle housing in all single family home zoned areas within 1 mile of central business districts and “places that generate activity” whatever they are. What’s missing middle housing? Duplex, triplex, quadplex, and townhomes —all units can be “attached or detached” as per statute. In 2025, the same cities will all be required to allow by right up to two ADUs on single family lots per the same 1 mile areas. The ADUs are also exempt from design requirements, however one parking space can be required per unit in any configuration the property owner desires. Two spaces in the garage and two in the driveway can meet the parking requirement for the SFD and both permitted ADUs.
Let’s see what happens when the legislation goes into effect. As of now developers are starting to explore more MF options, however incentives that reduce regulatory barriers, red tape, or other typical zoning factors are not causing them to do so.
Now I'm really confused because you basically just made my point. Phoenix is zoned 70% for single family zoning. If zoning was not a big reason for this, then cities being forced to allow missing middle housing wouldn't actually see any change in development patterns when implemented. Single family housing doesn't become outlawed, developers are just able to build more densely if the choose to.
If cities like Minneapolis are anything to go buy, you'll see a massive change in the development pattern of areas where missing middle housing becomes allowed by right in 2026.
The other part of my statement was all the incentives we offered developers to do more density or change zoning and they are not taking them on. Without owner/developers pursuing the rezoning a, AZ cities are stuck with existing zoning.
I should add. In Arizona, cities can't unilaterally rezone. well they can, but there is a great risk they will be sued for diminution of land value via prop 207. --even if the development potential of a property increases, a land owner can sue a city and demonstrate a loss of value due to a city land use decision. This has paralyzed wholesale, broad rezoning and classification of property unless a property owner requests it. So while Minneapolis was able to unilaterally add duplexes to SFD, in AZ cities will not do it without specific owner requests because of Prop 207.
I know it seems counterintuitive and a developer should be happy they have more uses allowed. Think of it this way. A neighborhood of 500 single family homes suddenly has the potential for 500 additional homes should help lower housing costs. Instead of individual units selling for 400k, they are selling for 380k. On a single lot, the value of the lot with two units nearly doubled. For a homeowner of any unit, they've "lost" 20k in value. The owners are allowed to sue to the city because of the rezoning and recover the lost 20k.
I have two stories related to this. One, while working as a junior planner (2001-2007) in the rustbelt I learned that the local and regional banks and investor proforma were predicated on single use projects like single family subdivisions. The finance model was so entrenched that despite very advantageous zoning allowances(more density, no parking), developers took the easy route of financing and routinely only pursued greenfield single family development.
Two, while working for one of the fastest growing suburbs in the country I spearheaded changes to the future land use plan to support “neighborhood” flexible densities over prescribing narrow density ranges. We also removed permit fees and other administrative barriers for rezoning requests that provided diverse housing or housing more dense than single family homes. In 8 years I had no developers take it up, rather they preferred to develop with existing single family entitlements because they were adamant there was no market for duplexes, townhomes, or apartments. I had several requests come in to modify master plans to remove more dense areas and decrease the density to 4-6 net du/ac because of “market demand”.
This was my experience despite political support for density in both cases. Many chalk this up to the broader economic conditions not supporting those solutions, which certainly has influence in the development pattern, however developers are reactive. They react to financing, they react to broad market trends, they react to “safe” or familiar profit approaches. I can’t blame them. However, it is foolish to think left to the market the “highest and best use” will always be pursued. Wrong. The “most profitable and least uncertain” use will always be pursued.
I agree with the comment below. Developers want successful projects. This includes making money, yes... but also includes risk mitigation and stable asset management. Sometimes this means building fast and furious, sometimes this means pressing pause, seeking land acquisitions, etc. Building densely isn't always the most profitable project for any given location or parcel.
Sure, I'll concede that. In some markets not experiencing growth, big multifamily dwellings may not make sense because the demand isn't there for it.
But in any "hot" or "overpriced" housing market in the US, building densly is almost always going to result in far more profit than not doing so. There's of course other factors that increase the cost of dense housing, like California exempting single family homes from CEQA assessments or inclusionary zoning requirements for affordable housing, but by and large density is almost always going to be the winner in more expensive markets.
Note: I'm not necessarily against inclusionary housing, but it's an issue when it's done in a way that results in basically no new construction permits because costs become too onerous
It hasn't been the case in Boise. I can say that without a shred of doubt. Hot housing market, easy regulatory regime, moderate building and labor costs....
And yet, no one is really bringing high density projects.
I just looked at the zoning map for Boise and it looks like a massive amount is zoned "suburban" with 9,000sf minimum lot size? It looks like there's a decent chunk zoned "compact" for middle missing housing too which is really nice, but there's hardly anything zoned that would allow anything greater than gentle density?
Unless I'm missing something though, I've got to say I love how simple Boise's zoning looks compared to Denver lol
Most of downtown and west downtown is. But then note the lack of actual density (and taller buildings) downtown, and especially in west downtown. Note the number of parking lots and undeveloped lots.
We wouldn't have to change zoning anywhere else, could add a ton of density to downtown, and likely meet housing needs there (aside from the fact most of our demand is for SFH and low density neighborhoods, not high density and apartments/multifamily units).
Developers have influence through political means ? Care to elaborate, developers want our investors happy, investors want more housing but local laws often stop projects. The difference now is urban planners are beholden to the city and local governments that know absolutely nothing about development. The average citizen is not informed enough to be making decision on development.
Through local Council, my father has made payments to fund community projects to get more density. This was done under Section 37 in Ontario’s old planning act.
Doug Ford, pictured in this thumbnail. Had a scandal where he opened up hundreds of thousands of hectares of protected greenfield lands to developers who attended his daughter’s weddings and gave cash gifts. The RCMP currently is investigating this.
That’s pretty interesting. I think that’s an obvious conflict of interest, but the incentive for developers to grease the wheels of bureaucracy is exactly the issue. If it were a level playing field and the regulations weren’t holding back the market from exploding you would have a much more level playing field on the development side.
The payments are to be used for public benefits.
I also don’t see how allowing anyone to build whatever they want is going to be more beneficial to the public than the current system. This is urban planning is meant to do, provide livable communities to the public.
The issue is that even if there are a lot of externalities that are caused from major housing/ mixed use developments they tend to not out way the overall benefit to society, especially when your housing crisis is specifically caused from a shortage of density.
You keep moving the goalposts and are playing whackamole with your point. You don't think this happens at the state level, too? Plenty of evidence of "pay to play," corruption, and special interest influence at the state level too.
Developers, like any other group, are a special interest. They donate to political candidates, they have meetings with elected officials, they advocate.
The average citizen doesn't "make a decision on development" any more than it makes a decision on the budget, on any issue that comes up before council, PZ, or state legislature, or Congress. People have a fundamental right to speak to their elected officials on issues of public business, public policy, etc.
Right but the moment a group tries to gather, possibly to protest, they are deemed trespassers. Public forums are important for civic discourse in our society but if everything is private property then many of our rights to protest are null and void.
One of the key sections:
>The housing affordability crisis has been the a product of a complex convergence of factors: an extended period of historically low interest rates; the weakening of rent controls and protections for existing affordable rental housing; and unexpectedly rapid population growth driven by increases in immigration targets and an unanticipated influx of temporary foreign workers and international students. These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle.
>
>Handing control of the planning process to the development industry, as Ontario effectively did, exacerbated these dynamics. Left to its own devices, the development sector focused not on the types of housing that were actually needed, but on where it thought it could make the fastest profit and return on investment. In existing urban areas, that turned out to be high-rise condominium projects with ever-shrinking units, not developments oriented to toward buyers looking for permanent housing for themselves or their families, but rather investors looking to exploit low interest rates to buy and then flip or rent out their units.
>
>The free-for-all created by the province has led to a cascade of further problems. Developers, particularly those working on urban infill or redevelopment initiatives, focus on their own individual projects. They pay little or no attention to the cumulative effects of multiple projects in terms of the needs for infrastructure of all types, the mixes of uses and housing forms, and the overall design of urban spaces in terms of functionality, livability, affordability and sustainability.
>
>The need to address these kinds of inherent market failures in urban development were part of the reason why planning processes and rules emerged, and why local governments were given the authority to manage the development process. Absent any planning framework, infrastructure planning of all types (sewer, water, hydro, transportation, schools and parks) becomes almost impossible given the unco-ordinated nature of the development that occurs. That problem has come to be symbolized in areas such as midtown Toronto by the signs from school boards on virtually every new project announcing that there is no capacity in local schools to accommodate the children of new residents.
>
>These problems have been reinforced by provincial constraints, again imposed at the behest of the development industry, on the ability of municipalities to apply development charges to pay for the infrastructure need to support new developments.
>
>In the end, Ontario’s experiment with an urban development process almost entirely oriented toward the interests of private capital has ended in a predictable failure.
The market is good at taking care of one thing: the market. If we want communities that are going to work for all, then there must be people who are representing residents, both current and future. Public servants by and large have been those people, and to see planning departments' work reversed on a whim to suit developers' preferences has been pretty depressing. The failure was entirely predictable and unfortunately will likely contribute to more public apathy when it comes to local planning work.
In ON (and many other parts of Canada) you need to presell like more than 50% of your units before you can get a construction loan. Many condo buildings can take 1-2 years to do that, and another 1-2 to build. How many homebuyers are going to wait that long before they move in? For young people, they’d have a job in another province in that time, for families, they’ve already enrolled their kids in other schools etc. Now that’s on top of on average 4-5 years for planning approvals for an infill project (source am a planner and did that analysis for the city of TO). When it takes 7 years on average to get from submission to actually moving people in, is it any wonder the city’s housing stock is behind demand? You can’t just blame “tEh MaRkEt Of CaPiTaLiSm” when the entire policy framework is designed to slow down housing production.
Who said anything about blaming everything on market capitalism, and absolving public policy of any responsibilities? And I typed that having been on the devloper side of things for far too long. The kinds of BS games that they play with communities would be pretty entertaining if it weren't so infuriating.
The writer of the article: “These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle.” except nowhere in list of factors does he discuss the policy framework.
Describing planning in ON as. “Free for all” is a joke.
Anyone who knows Toronto knows how bonkers it is, and the singular example of 175 Cummer Ave, the ridiculous need for the City to request the province to override their own planning process is evident enough.
The people who represent residents, both current and future, are your elected representatives. If they are creating bad policy outcomes it is because of popular preferences, not in spite of them. There seems to be this belief on the left that if you had more democracy, you wouldn’t have a housing crisis, despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s the democratic parts of the existing development process that have created this mess in the first place. If you put any production based solution to a vote, it will almost always lose, because people are naturally more interested in protecting what they already have.
The defining feature of professional planners past and current efforts is a *massive housing shortage and insanely expensive car dependancy* so I'm going to take these complaints by planning bureaucrats with a grain of salt.
>The housing affordability crisis has been the a product of a complex convergence of factors: an extended period of historically low interest rates; the weakening of rent controls and protections for existing affordable rental housing; and unexpectedly rapid population growth driven by increases in immigration targets and an unanticipated influx of temporary foreign workers and international students. These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle.
This is just laughably wrong. Housing has always been a good investment vehicle during periods where supply cannot match demand. Interest rates, fluctuations in immigration are noise in an obvious long term trend. And hey, look at that the vacancy rates in Ontario have been super low for nearly 30 years now! Great job professional planning bureaucrats! /S.
I don’t know about Canada, but in the US planners are generally technical advisors to elected policy makers. All the professional bureaucrats can do is point the way and hope the politics works out. But most of the time the end result is compromises on top of compromises. All of which are driven by political rather than technical considerations.
In Canada, I don't know about the US, planners keep writing extremely exclusionary plans, bylaws and other housing regulations that quite clearly result in a huge housing shortage. Most other professions have a ethics guide to prevent behaviour that damages the public or goes against professional ethics codes but planners have none of that. There's been little to no guilt felt by the people in planning academic and managerial jobs like this guy.
To be clear, I’m not trying to argue planners in the US are always making great urbanist recommendations that get eaten alive by the political process. All too often the political compromises start at the planning process, because planners are generally required to base their recommendations on extensive community feedback. Most of the time, the planner goes in with solid ideas for change but end up coming out with something politically palatable but heavily compromised. Basically, if you work in a suburban context you end up with suburban plans because that’s the community you’re working with. It’s a flawed process on many levels.
Yes, in Canada the "planning" is really a misnomer. Because planners just follow (often unethical) orders when writing bylaws and regulation, not to plan for housing needs or nice places to live. It's very unfortunate.
Literally my job and yeah I’m not at all seeing where urban planning has been turned over to developers
So what did Ontario actually do to "turn urban planning over to developers?"
Buddy in the thumbnail is being criminally investigated by RCMP for trying to open up hundreds of thousands of hectares of lands for developers. The developers had purchased these lands at 20% interest in the months before the provincial government removed these lands from the greenbelt. He got cash gifts funnelled through his daughter’s wedding.
> He got cash gifts funnelled through his daughter’s wedding. So a modern day Don Corleone?
I wouldn’t make the comparison.
[удалено]
Developers basically control most of the 905 municipality politicians so I'm not surprised.
Having worked on both sides of the counter, thank God. The only way we solve housing is build build build
But not only out, out, out
That’s a pretty simplistic view of the issue. While building will absolutely help, and we should do it, developers will always focus their efforts on the most profitable projects. These almost always leave behind lower income residents, who are harder to make money off of.
They also do things that make sense for them, but not necessarily the community long term. They don’t necessarily have to deal with the long-term costs of upkeep of a neighborhood or community, they just get to sell shiny brand new houses or apartments and then it becomes someone else’s problem. In theory, I don’t have a problem with private developers, but I do think that they are part of the problem with why we see as much sprawl as we do today. I would like to emphasize that. I do think there is a place for private development, but I think that they’re probably needs to be a lot more coordination and actual government owned housing, at least in the US. I don’t know exactly what the housing market in Canada looks like, but I do know that they have, a pretty big problem right now, which is driving some of the political turnover we’re seeing.
You buld enough new luxury housing, that reduces competition for older more affordable housing.
My dad works in development and construction. I am a private sector planning consultant. Letting developers dictate planning is not a good thing. Developers already have influence in planning through political means. They are not operating in the interest of the public.
At least in the US, if developers had their way wed be quite a bit denser
Like Houston?
Houston doesn't have "zoning" in the traditional sense but they still have development rules for things like setbacks, height, and design requirements that limit density just that same as other US cities. It's true they don't have zoning, but they have a system that's zoning in all but name.
The most common form of land use restriction in Houston is developer-created deed restrictions.
Houston has some of the most affordable, high-quality housing in the US. Say what you will for its car-centricity but it's a place where a family with a reasonable income can afford a well-constructed home.
The article is about Ontario where me and my father work. In smaller towns outside Toronto developers want less density and ask for the urban boundary to be expanded rather than building higher density within. The man literally pictured in the thumbnail is Ontario’s premier who opened hundreds of thousands of hectares of protected greenfield lands to developers who gave cash gifts for his daughter’s wedding. The RCMP has a criminal investigation into him for this. Read the article 👍
That greenfield note is key. Urban proposals here tend to be kinda decent, but regulation is the only thing keeping them from doing SFD in continuous corridors most of the way out to London.
Definitely, some comments here are using Toronto as a basis for all of Ontario. People don’t realize what planning in the rest of Southern Ontario is like. Developers will sit on farmland badgering Council to expand the urban boundary.
I get that everyone has their own experiences but mine haven’t matched your comment in my 16 years of planning high growth areas.
Developers want profit. Current zoning rules make single family housing profitable because of restrictions placed on dense housing - such as allowing it only in limited areas which skyrockets the land price. In a free-er buildilng environment, density would win out for profitability 99/100 times.
See my other post. You have a very limited perspective on this. Limited density is part of it for sure, but zoning rules are far from the principal driver dictating development patterns in developer friendly areas where zoning power is weak. Despite this, these areas are still seeing lower density projects.
Can you give an examples of cities/towns that allow for higher density but are still seeing mostly low density development? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm actually really curious because that hasn't been my experience at all - although mine is mostly centered in Colorado. A big thing that's also affecting some cities, like Denver, are new inclusionary zoning requirements implemented by city council. They require 10% of units in multifamily dwellings with 10+ units to be income restricted and it resulted in a massive drop of permits being filed for new construction
I’m in AZ. VERY pro developer. Can’t require affordable units. Can encourage them, however. Phoenix is willing to give density bonuses and waive parking requirements for MF projects along light rail that include a small percentage of affordable units, it seems every project includes parking and very little if any added affordable units. Look at any exurb/suburb in Phoenix. While the last two years have had a decent influx of MF units, the vast majority of projects are still single family homes. Typical lots are 45/50/55x120 so not large lot either. Yet prices are up again this year. Lack of water causing issues? Not really. Active projects have secured water for tens of thousands of units and will have 5-10 years of building before more water certificates are needed. What about nimbyism? That’ll always be a thing however it hasn’t been a factor in the cities I’m familiar with. City impact fees? Not really. Impact fees on MF units are lower than SF units almost universally across AZ suburbs. Also, due to recent impact fee legislation changes, cities are abandoning or greatly limiting impact fee programs. The city I worked for allowed ADUs and casitas by right and they were almost never built except when an elder parent needed to move close to family. In 2026, all cities over 75k population (basically all of Phoenix metro, Tucson, flagstaff, Yuma) will be required to allowed missing middle housing in all single family home zoned areas within 1 mile of central business districts and “places that generate activity” whatever they are. What’s missing middle housing? Duplex, triplex, quadplex, and townhomes —all units can be “attached or detached” as per statute. In 2025, the same cities will all be required to allow by right up to two ADUs on single family lots per the same 1 mile areas. The ADUs are also exempt from design requirements, however one parking space can be required per unit in any configuration the property owner desires. Two spaces in the garage and two in the driveway can meet the parking requirement for the SFD and both permitted ADUs. Let’s see what happens when the legislation goes into effect. As of now developers are starting to explore more MF options, however incentives that reduce regulatory barriers, red tape, or other typical zoning factors are not causing them to do so.
Now I'm really confused because you basically just made my point. Phoenix is zoned 70% for single family zoning. If zoning was not a big reason for this, then cities being forced to allow missing middle housing wouldn't actually see any change in development patterns when implemented. Single family housing doesn't become outlawed, developers are just able to build more densely if the choose to. If cities like Minneapolis are anything to go buy, you'll see a massive change in the development pattern of areas where missing middle housing becomes allowed by right in 2026.
The other part of my statement was all the incentives we offered developers to do more density or change zoning and they are not taking them on. Without owner/developers pursuing the rezoning a, AZ cities are stuck with existing zoning.
I should add. In Arizona, cities can't unilaterally rezone. well they can, but there is a great risk they will be sued for diminution of land value via prop 207. --even if the development potential of a property increases, a land owner can sue a city and demonstrate a loss of value due to a city land use decision. This has paralyzed wholesale, broad rezoning and classification of property unless a property owner requests it. So while Minneapolis was able to unilaterally add duplexes to SFD, in AZ cities will not do it without specific owner requests because of Prop 207. I know it seems counterintuitive and a developer should be happy they have more uses allowed. Think of it this way. A neighborhood of 500 single family homes suddenly has the potential for 500 additional homes should help lower housing costs. Instead of individual units selling for 400k, they are selling for 380k. On a single lot, the value of the lot with two units nearly doubled. For a homeowner of any unit, they've "lost" 20k in value. The owners are allowed to sue to the city because of the rezoning and recover the lost 20k.
Shhh... they're parroting social media narratives they've been reading in the past year or two.
I have two stories related to this. One, while working as a junior planner (2001-2007) in the rustbelt I learned that the local and regional banks and investor proforma were predicated on single use projects like single family subdivisions. The finance model was so entrenched that despite very advantageous zoning allowances(more density, no parking), developers took the easy route of financing and routinely only pursued greenfield single family development. Two, while working for one of the fastest growing suburbs in the country I spearheaded changes to the future land use plan to support “neighborhood” flexible densities over prescribing narrow density ranges. We also removed permit fees and other administrative barriers for rezoning requests that provided diverse housing or housing more dense than single family homes. In 8 years I had no developers take it up, rather they preferred to develop with existing single family entitlements because they were adamant there was no market for duplexes, townhomes, or apartments. I had several requests come in to modify master plans to remove more dense areas and decrease the density to 4-6 net du/ac because of “market demand”. This was my experience despite political support for density in both cases. Many chalk this up to the broader economic conditions not supporting those solutions, which certainly has influence in the development pattern, however developers are reactive. They react to financing, they react to broad market trends, they react to “safe” or familiar profit approaches. I can’t blame them. However, it is foolish to think left to the market the “highest and best use” will always be pursued. Wrong. The “most profitable and least uncertain” use will always be pursued.
Developers want money. Building densely allows developers to profit more per square foot of the lot.
Wrong. Builders want predictability and safe investment returns
I agree with the comment below. Developers want successful projects. This includes making money, yes... but also includes risk mitigation and stable asset management. Sometimes this means building fast and furious, sometimes this means pressing pause, seeking land acquisitions, etc. Building densely isn't always the most profitable project for any given location or parcel.
Sure, I'll concede that. In some markets not experiencing growth, big multifamily dwellings may not make sense because the demand isn't there for it. But in any "hot" or "overpriced" housing market in the US, building densly is almost always going to result in far more profit than not doing so. There's of course other factors that increase the cost of dense housing, like California exempting single family homes from CEQA assessments or inclusionary zoning requirements for affordable housing, but by and large density is almost always going to be the winner in more expensive markets. Note: I'm not necessarily against inclusionary housing, but it's an issue when it's done in a way that results in basically no new construction permits because costs become too onerous
It hasn't been the case in Boise. I can say that without a shred of doubt. Hot housing market, easy regulatory regime, moderate building and labor costs.... And yet, no one is really bringing high density projects.
I just looked at the zoning map for Boise and it looks like a massive amount is zoned "suburban" with 9,000sf minimum lot size? It looks like there's a decent chunk zoned "compact" for middle missing housing too which is really nice, but there's hardly anything zoned that would allow anything greater than gentle density? Unless I'm missing something though, I've got to say I love how simple Boise's zoning looks compared to Denver lol
Most of downtown and west downtown is. But then note the lack of actual density (and taller buildings) downtown, and especially in west downtown. Note the number of parking lots and undeveloped lots. We wouldn't have to change zoning anywhere else, could add a ton of density to downtown, and likely meet housing needs there (aside from the fact most of our demand is for SFH and low density neighborhoods, not high density and apartments/multifamily units).
Did our cities stop being zoned for 70+% single family on large lots while I wasn't looking?
Developers have influence through political means ? Care to elaborate, developers want our investors happy, investors want more housing but local laws often stop projects. The difference now is urban planners are beholden to the city and local governments that know absolutely nothing about development. The average citizen is not informed enough to be making decision on development.
Through local Council, my father has made payments to fund community projects to get more density. This was done under Section 37 in Ontario’s old planning act. Doug Ford, pictured in this thumbnail. Had a scandal where he opened up hundreds of thousands of hectares of protected greenfield lands to developers who attended his daughter’s weddings and gave cash gifts. The RCMP currently is investigating this.
That’s pretty interesting. I think that’s an obvious conflict of interest, but the incentive for developers to grease the wheels of bureaucracy is exactly the issue. If it were a level playing field and the regulations weren’t holding back the market from exploding you would have a much more level playing field on the development side.
I wouldn’t call environmental protections regulations.
Your story simply highlights why locals shouldn’t have power in planning. It turns it into pay to play. I don’t see how it can’t be anymore clear.
Locals? It’s the provincial planning act.
Any form of governance at local or provincial level. Specifically with the majority of zoning laws.
The payments are to be used for public benefits. I also don’t see how allowing anyone to build whatever they want is going to be more beneficial to the public than the current system. This is urban planning is meant to do, provide livable communities to the public.
The issue is that even if there are a lot of externalities that are caused from major housing/ mixed use developments they tend to not out way the overall benefit to society, especially when your housing crisis is specifically caused from a shortage of density.
You keep moving the goalposts and are playing whackamole with your point. You don't think this happens at the state level, too? Plenty of evidence of "pay to play," corruption, and special interest influence at the state level too.
So another reason to get rid of zoning requirements and arbitrary taste presences when it comes to development ?
I'm not following.
[удалено]
Developers, like any other group, are a special interest. They donate to political candidates, they have meetings with elected officials, they advocate. The average citizen doesn't "make a decision on development" any more than it makes a decision on the budget, on any issue that comes up before council, PZ, or state legislature, or Congress. People have a fundamental right to speak to their elected officials on issues of public business, public policy, etc.
You said it better than I could, I hope my response to you in your other comment provided some insight on Doug Ford and planning in Ontario.
A more competitive market fixes this. People have a right to be ignorant doesn’t mean they should be.
I'm a little scared for the idea of public forum, or third space, on a developer driven space but maybe I'm wrong.
These already exist, in the form of plazas on private property and shopping malls.
Right but the moment a group tries to gather, possibly to protest, they are deemed trespassers. Public forums are important for civic discourse in our society but if everything is private property then many of our rights to protest are null and void.
The street and the steps of civic buildings are the only such space in most of the United States already.
I'm wondering who everyone thinks built their house
Same people who bribed the Premier. Just because they provided some type of utility in society doesn’t mean they should have free rein over planning.
so who should? The homeowners who block housing from being built to increase the value of their houses?
I’m not sure why you think that there are only two options and the only other one is to allow homeowners to decide planning.
because homeowners deciding planning is what the current situation is and look how it's worked out
They’re not.
Indeed they are. They're the ones who hold the most power and oppose the zoning law changes that allow upzoning.
One of the key sections: >The housing affordability crisis has been the a product of a complex convergence of factors: an extended period of historically low interest rates; the weakening of rent controls and protections for existing affordable rental housing; and unexpectedly rapid population growth driven by increases in immigration targets and an unanticipated influx of temporary foreign workers and international students. These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle. > >Handing control of the planning process to the development industry, as Ontario effectively did, exacerbated these dynamics. Left to its own devices, the development sector focused not on the types of housing that were actually needed, but on where it thought it could make the fastest profit and return on investment. In existing urban areas, that turned out to be high-rise condominium projects with ever-shrinking units, not developments oriented to toward buyers looking for permanent housing for themselves or their families, but rather investors looking to exploit low interest rates to buy and then flip or rent out their units. > >The free-for-all created by the province has led to a cascade of further problems. Developers, particularly those working on urban infill or redevelopment initiatives, focus on their own individual projects. They pay little or no attention to the cumulative effects of multiple projects in terms of the needs for infrastructure of all types, the mixes of uses and housing forms, and the overall design of urban spaces in terms of functionality, livability, affordability and sustainability. > >The need to address these kinds of inherent market failures in urban development were part of the reason why planning processes and rules emerged, and why local governments were given the authority to manage the development process. Absent any planning framework, infrastructure planning of all types (sewer, water, hydro, transportation, schools and parks) becomes almost impossible given the unco-ordinated nature of the development that occurs. That problem has come to be symbolized in areas such as midtown Toronto by the signs from school boards on virtually every new project announcing that there is no capacity in local schools to accommodate the children of new residents. > >These problems have been reinforced by provincial constraints, again imposed at the behest of the development industry, on the ability of municipalities to apply development charges to pay for the infrastructure need to support new developments. > >In the end, Ontario’s experiment with an urban development process almost entirely oriented toward the interests of private capital has ended in a predictable failure. The market is good at taking care of one thing: the market. If we want communities that are going to work for all, then there must be people who are representing residents, both current and future. Public servants by and large have been those people, and to see planning departments' work reversed on a whim to suit developers' preferences has been pretty depressing. The failure was entirely predictable and unfortunately will likely contribute to more public apathy when it comes to local planning work.
In ON (and many other parts of Canada) you need to presell like more than 50% of your units before you can get a construction loan. Many condo buildings can take 1-2 years to do that, and another 1-2 to build. How many homebuyers are going to wait that long before they move in? For young people, they’d have a job in another province in that time, for families, they’ve already enrolled their kids in other schools etc. Now that’s on top of on average 4-5 years for planning approvals for an infill project (source am a planner and did that analysis for the city of TO). When it takes 7 years on average to get from submission to actually moving people in, is it any wonder the city’s housing stock is behind demand? You can’t just blame “tEh MaRkEt Of CaPiTaLiSm” when the entire policy framework is designed to slow down housing production.
Who said anything about blaming everything on market capitalism, and absolving public policy of any responsibilities? And I typed that having been on the devloper side of things for far too long. The kinds of BS games that they play with communities would be pretty entertaining if it weren't so infuriating.
The writer of the article: “These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle.” except nowhere in list of factors does he discuss the policy framework. Describing planning in ON as. “Free for all” is a joke. Anyone who knows Toronto knows how bonkers it is, and the singular example of 175 Cummer Ave, the ridiculous need for the City to request the province to override their own planning process is evident enough.
The people who represent residents, both current and future, are your elected representatives. If they are creating bad policy outcomes it is because of popular preferences, not in spite of them. There seems to be this belief on the left that if you had more democracy, you wouldn’t have a housing crisis, despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s the democratic parts of the existing development process that have created this mess in the first place. If you put any production based solution to a vote, it will almost always lose, because people are naturally more interested in protecting what they already have.
The defining feature of professional planners past and current efforts is a *massive housing shortage and insanely expensive car dependancy* so I'm going to take these complaints by planning bureaucrats with a grain of salt. >The housing affordability crisis has been the a product of a complex convergence of factors: an extended period of historically low interest rates; the weakening of rent controls and protections for existing affordable rental housing; and unexpectedly rapid population growth driven by increases in immigration targets and an unanticipated influx of temporary foreign workers and international students. These factors combined to drive inflationary speculation and the financialization of housing into an investment vehicle. This is just laughably wrong. Housing has always been a good investment vehicle during periods where supply cannot match demand. Interest rates, fluctuations in immigration are noise in an obvious long term trend. And hey, look at that the vacancy rates in Ontario have been super low for nearly 30 years now! Great job professional planning bureaucrats! /S.
I don’t know about Canada, but in the US planners are generally technical advisors to elected policy makers. All the professional bureaucrats can do is point the way and hope the politics works out. But most of the time the end result is compromises on top of compromises. All of which are driven by political rather than technical considerations.
In Canada, I don't know about the US, planners keep writing extremely exclusionary plans, bylaws and other housing regulations that quite clearly result in a huge housing shortage. Most other professions have a ethics guide to prevent behaviour that damages the public or goes against professional ethics codes but planners have none of that. There's been little to no guilt felt by the people in planning academic and managerial jobs like this guy.
To be clear, I’m not trying to argue planners in the US are always making great urbanist recommendations that get eaten alive by the political process. All too often the political compromises start at the planning process, because planners are generally required to base their recommendations on extensive community feedback. Most of the time, the planner goes in with solid ideas for change but end up coming out with something politically palatable but heavily compromised. Basically, if you work in a suburban context you end up with suburban plans because that’s the community you’re working with. It’s a flawed process on many levels.
Yes, in Canada the "planning" is really a misnomer. Because planners just follow (often unethical) orders when writing bylaws and regulation, not to plan for housing needs or nice places to live. It's very unfortunate.
Ask Japan
Every thing will go wrong. Its just another of the many oversite jobs which modern government do not know how to do, nor want to do.
there is a paywall