Housing shortfall, costs and affordability

[danbrotherston]

Still no guarantee that a project that received site plan approval that doesn't get built doesn't come back to the city.

At least, if I understand the process correctly, the city often modifies the proposal from developers. The city is not necessarily privy to the developers business plan, and those changes could turn a project from a profitable one to pursue to an profitable one to shelve and try to divest of.

As in, the developer could request a modified site plan, after the city has already approved one? (The city will not typically request any significant changes at the building permit stage.)

The point being, that if the city has approved a site plan, the developer has the ability to proceed. If the developer doesn't accept the changes, the site plan does not normally proceed to the approval step. (Whether their business plan is viable is not something the city can determine.)

I'm suggesting that changes that the city requests could change a developer's priority. For example, they could choose to instead try to sell the property to another developer, we've seen this happen a few times, where the city has requested changes, and then, despite approvals being given the property doesn't get developed and is eventually sold.

I mean, I am not saying that the developer would absolutely have developed it if the city hadn't made changes, but I think it's feasible.

In any case, I don't really have a solution for that, other than opening up way more development...not that I really think we need one...I don't think people looking for housing care how many units the city approves, they care how many are built.