Population and Housing

[ijmorlan]

Maybe I am wrong and the region can accommodate 300,000 people in shoebox towers in the downtowns or at various midrise infill projects that take years to build due to nimby protests. In the mean time I am glad I got into the housing market a couple years ago, because prices will probably continue to skyrocket in this region due to the artificial constraint.

I think you raise some good points. I should point out, however, that fixing the midrise infill issue is mostly a matter of liberalizing zoning: allow everything up to 3-story apartment buildings in all zones, and eliminate the distinction between detached/semi/townhouses/stack townhouses/maisonettes/duplexes/triplexes/whatever other words planners use. Also allow residential in commercial (most likely, apartments above retail, but unlike typical planners I don’t pretend to know what everybody will need) and allow 6-story buildings in all commercial zones. Allow neighbouring properties to waive setbacks without input from other properties and eliminate all parking minima. That’s for a start, just off the top of my head.

Then the NIMBY problem is gone because all the midrise can be built without going to Council to adjust the rules.

The biggest objection from the planning department would probably be the job loss owing to nothing to do.

[danbrotherston]

Okay, I don't understand what this discussion is even about, didn't we have a regional plan already, that was heavily compromised to favour sprawl developers, but none the less approved.

Now they're asking for more?!

https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2...-land.html

Also, explain to me why these folks are arguing that dense walkable developments are "unaffordable" yet the market (you know the thing which decides prices) wants sprawl instead? If housing is unaffordable, it's because it's in demand and supply hasn't met demand. Sooooooo....the market WANTS urban walkable development, not cheap sprawl.

Have to disagree with you on the regional plan favoring sprawl. Our region has some of the tightness land protection policies in the province. Waterloo has literally no more available land. It will be 100% infill from now on. Kitchener has a small slice of land in the southwest corner of the city, which will be completely developed out within the decade. Cambridge is in a similar boat, but they actually have a large tract of land near the airport, but I believe they are hoping that that is mostly employment land.  

The market actually wants both. Some people (me included) prefer to live in a downtown core with lively streets and communal amenities.  While others prefer the new detached home with a backyard. Some of the suburban developments are so popular right now you have to sign up for a lottery just to get a chance a buying.  I think the region has done a fairly good job a densifying and infilling in the cores and along the LRT spine. I do think if the region is realistic about meeting its population targets (almost a million people) it is going to have to open up the country lane boarder slightly. Plan for this, decide on strategic land to open up. Personally I can think of a few, the Bridgeport peninsula is where I would start. Fairly close to both downtown cores and can be connected easily by transit. The land between the Conestoga river and waterloo near the blackberry HQ and North Dumfries between Blair and Galt. 

The region needs to accept that more land will need to be allocated to housing needs in the future and plan ahead. The developers will eventually sidestep the region and go directly to the province, resulting in piecemeal built city.  Provide strict guidelines to new suburbs, which included density targets, minimum multi-unit residentials, grid layout that will connect with future developments, bike infrastructure, parks that aren't hidden by rows of housing, and walkable community nodes that aren't just a sea of parking at a grocery store. Maybe this is too much to ask of our 8 government planning departments. It is most definitely too much to ask of the greedy developers. 

Maybe I am wrong and the region can accommodate 300,000 people in shoebox towers in the downtowns or at various midrise infill projects that take years to build due to nimby protests. In the mean time I am glad I got into the housing market a couple years ago, because prices will probably continue to skyrocket in this region due to the artificial constraint.

I never said the regional wasn't fairly restrictive. But the approved plan was about 10x the sprawl land than the region had requested and about 1/2 of what developers asked for. Ultimately, I'd say that's a big developer win.

As for land, no, we've been building single family homes almost exclusively for 70 years or so. We have PLENTY. It is dense urban development that we need more of. When we built more of that, there will still be plenty of single family homes for those who prefer that.

And that's leaving aside the fact that we vastly VASTLY underprice sprawl. People who live in those types of homes should be paying for the cost of having those types of homes.

As for whether the region could accomodate 300,000 new people with infill. I mean, EASILY. Trivially. We've got so many subdivisions with nothing but sprawling single family home, even with only smart infill rather than completely demolishing and rebuilding, we could hit those numbers. But people would have to accept or be made to accept that a few homes on their street (I mean *every* street) will become a 3-4 story walkup. It sounds like such a small thing, but yet if you ask the NIMBYs you might as well be murdering everyone's children.

We absolutely need a culture change. But the physics or say the geometry of the situation is not a problem.

[danbrotherston]

Maybe I am wrong and the region can accommodate 300,000 people in shoebox towers in the downtowns or at various midrise infill projects that take years to build due to nimby protests. In the mean time I am glad I got into the housing market a couple years ago, because prices will probably continue to skyrocket in this region due to the artificial constraint.

I think you raise some good points. I should point out, however, that fixing the midrise infill issue is mostly a matter of liberalizing zoning: allow everything up to 3-story apartment buildings in all zones, and eliminate the distinction between detached/semi/townhouses/stack townhouses/maisonettes/duplexes/triplexes/whatever other words planners use. Also allow residential in commercial (most likely, apartments above retail, but unlike typical planners I don’t pretend to know what everybody will need) and allow 6-story buildings in all commercial zones. Allow neighbouring properties to waive setbacks without input from other properties and eliminate all parking minima. That’s for a start, just off the top of my head.

Then the NIMBY problem is gone because all the midrise can be built without going to Council to adjust the rules.

The biggest objection from the planning department would probably be the job loss owing to nothing to do.

Haha...ahh...that's cute.

I mean, the reason why zoning is restrictive is because people with power want it that way. Even if we managed to change the rules, people with power aren't going to shut up about it....and they certainly aren't going to let the lack of rules stop them from getting their way.

[ijmorlan]

I think you raise some good points. I should point out, however, that fixing the midrise infill issue is mostly a matter of liberalizing zoning: allow everything up to 3-story apartment buildings in all zones, and eliminate the distinction between detached/semi/townhouses/stack townhouses/maisonettes/duplexes/triplexes/whatever other words planners use. Also allow residential in commercial (most likely, apartments above retail, but unlike typical planners I don’t pretend to know what everybody will need) and allow 6-story buildings in all commercial zones. Allow neighbouring properties to waive setbacks without input from other properties and eliminate all parking minima. That’s for a start, just off the top of my head.

Then the NIMBY problem is gone because all the midrise can be built without going to Council to adjust the rules.

The biggest objection from the planning department would probably be the job loss owing to nothing to do.

Haha...ahh...that's cute.

I mean, the reason why zoning is restrictive is because people with power want it that way. Even if we managed to change the rules, people with power aren't going to shut up about it....and they certainly aren't going to let the lack of rules stop them from getting their way.

OK, I’m being a bit flippant, and I recognize that we’re pretty far from passing reasonable zoning reform, but right now these issues keep coming up because developers need to ask for exceptions or adjustments to the existing zoning rules. Most of the opportunity to stop a development comes from convincing Council not to approve the adjustments.

How can a development be stopped which falls entirely within zoning? For example, if I want to knock down my house and build another single-family house on the site meeting all the modern setback rules and so on, I’m pretty sure I just submit a building permit application to the City, which checks that it meets all the zoning requirements and issues the permit. Is there even any public notice before the permit is issued? The first hint the neighbours would have would be survey stakes, followed a week or two later by a backhoe showing up and digging a big hole.

If you’re saying that getting the zoning revised would be really really hard, then … you’re right!

[danbrotherston]

Haha...ahh...that's cute.

I mean, the reason why zoning is restrictive is because people with power want it that way. Even if we managed to change the rules, people with power aren't going to shut up about it....and they certainly aren't going to let the lack of rules stop them from getting their way.

OK, I’m being a bit flippant, and I recognize that we’re pretty far from passing reasonable zoning reform, but right now these issues keep coming up because developers need to ask for exceptions or adjustments to the existing zoning rules. Most of the opportunity to stop a development comes from convincing Council not to approve the adjustments.

How can a development be stopped which falls entirely within zoning? For example, if I want to knock down my house and build another single-family house on the site meeting all the modern setback rules and so on, I’m pretty sure I just submit a building permit application to the City, which checks that it meets all the zoning requirements and issues the permit. Is there even any public notice before the permit is issued? The first hint the neighbours would have would be survey stakes, followed a week or two later by a backhoe showing up and digging a big hole.

If you’re saying that getting the zoning revised would be really really hard, then … you’re right!

I wouldn't say it's impossible, I'd not even say it's hard for those with means. Lawsuits, injunctions, petitions to council, wealthy people have a large number of options for opposing these things. Maybe they wouldn't stop every project, but they could still make it more expensive, and more difficult.

What we really need is a few major culture shifts. It needs to be seen as a bad thing to do to try and exclude people from your neighbourhood. It needs to be seen as a bad thing to exclude people from our roads. I don't know how to achieve culture change, certainly progress is a great way to do it, but until we do, those with means will continue to exert their will on others, even in the face of progress removing those barriers.

I'm not saying that removing zoning wouldn't significantly increase the cost and effort required for these objections. I think it's a good thing to achieve, it would be progress, but it's no panacea.

[ijmorlan]

As for whether the region could accomodate 300,000 new people with infill. I mean, EASILY. Trivially. We've got so many subdivisions with nothing but sprawling single family home, even with only smart infill rather than completely demolishing and rebuilding, we could hit those numbers. But people would have to accept or be made to accept that a few homes on their street (I mean *every* street) will become a 3-4 story walkup. It sounds like such a small thing, but yet if you ask the NIMBYs you might as well be murdering everyone's children.

People underestimate the density of midrise. The floor space of the Pentagon (5 stories plus 2 lower levels) is much larger than the floor space of One World Trade Centre (94 stories). Not really the kind of construction we’re talking about for Waterloo but the same point about lots of midrise vs. a small number of very tall buildings.

Also don’t forget that public transit would automatically be in place for all the infill; the ridership on the existing bus services would just go up accordingly, eventually improving the fare recovery without any special effort and making future service improvements easier.

[Acitta]

Booming growth fuels a need for hundreds more hectares of land

[danbrotherston]

As for whether the region could accomodate 300,000 new people with infill. I mean, EASILY. Trivially. We've got so many subdivisions with nothing but sprawling single family home, even with only smart infill rather than completely demolishing and rebuilding, we could hit those numbers. But people would have to accept or be made to accept that a few homes on their street (I mean *every* street) will become a 3-4 story walkup. It sounds like such a small thing, but yet if you ask the NIMBYs you might as well be murdering everyone's children.

People underestimate the density of midrise. The floor space of the Pentagon (5 stories plus 2 lower levels) is much larger than the floor space of One World Trade Centre (94 stories). Not really the kind of construction we’re talking about for Waterloo but the same point about lots of midrise vs. a small number of very tall buildings.

Also don’t forget that public transit would automatically be in place for all the infill; the ridership on the existing bus services would just go up accordingly, eventually improving the fare recovery without any special effort and making future service improvements easier.

This is very much on point. Even in NYC, the largest building by square footage isn't particularly tall. Especially modern tower design with significant setbacks end up not being all that large.

The frustrating thing is that people also confuse density with crowding. Density does not mean crowding...lack of housing leads to crowding. Northdale is less crowded now than when I was a student, even though it has an order of magnitude more square footage of housing.

[ac3r]

Condo developer plans to buy $1-billion worth of single-family houses in Canada for rentals: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...houses-in/

[nms]

Condo developer plans to buy $1-billion worth of single-family houses in Canada for rentals: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...houses-in/

Modern block-busting? If you buy up the neighbourhood, no one objects if you tear it down and build something bigger. Mind you, at today's prices, that *might* get you a 1,000 homes.

On a related note, what's the Region's plan for when we run out of water? Our groundwater supply is getting close to its limit. (Stantec report to the Region, 2015 PDF)  Currently the Region maintains a 20% surplus "supply gap."  According to the report linked here, by 2029, if anyone major source in our system goes offline (ie an accident, or technical failure), "Additional supply will be needed to be online prior to 2029 to increase total available supply".  By 2044, and if no new sources are added to the system, the supply gap will have disappeared. The 2015 Master Plan suggests that the Region might be able to extend our water supply to 2050 with some upgrades and new wells without needing drastic action. 

After 2050, a pipe to Lake Erie and introducing water reuse (ie reclaiming and reusing water on site and not dumping treated water into the Grand River) would be the only options to increase supply.

This report does not mention population predictions but I would wonder if the the current explosion in development has shortened the window to when we run out of local water.

[danbrotherston]

Condo developer plans to buy $1-billion worth of single-family houses in Canada for rentals: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business...houses-in/

Modern block-busting? If you buy up the neighbourhood, no one objects if you tear it down and build something bigger. Mind you, at today's prices, that *might* get you a 1,000 homes.

On a related note, what's the Region's plan for when we run out of water? Our groundwater supply is getting close to its limit. (Stantec report to the Region, 2015 PDF)  Currently the Region maintains a 20% surplus "supply gap."  According to the report linked here, by 2029, if anyone major source in our system goes offline (ie an accident, or technical failure), "Additional supply will be needed to be online prior to 2029 to increase total available supply".  By 2044, and if no new sources are added to the system, the supply gap will have disappeared. The 2015 Master Plan suggests that the Region might be able to extend our water supply to 2050 with some upgrades and new wells without needing drastic action. 

After 2050, a pipe to Lake Erie and introducing water reuse (ie reclaiming and reusing water on site and not dumping treated water into the Grand River) would be the only options to increase supply.

This report does not mention population predictions but I would wonder if the the current explosion in development has shortened the window to when we run out of local water.

The plan is and always has been reduction in usage. I'm pretty sure there's a new plan that has shown that the 2050 timeframe for a pipeline has now been pushed out beyond the forecasting horizon. Ultimately, our region has been a model for managing water use, and our per capita water consumption is relatively low for Ontario levels.

[tomh009]

Maybe I am wrong and the region can accommodate 300,000 people in shoebox towers in the downtowns or at various midrise infill projects that take years to build due to nimby protests. In the mean time I am glad I got into the housing market a couple years ago, because prices will probably continue to skyrocket in this region due to the artificial constraint.

So, the choice is single-family housing sprawl into the farmlands, with more car-centric transportation, or everyone living in a shoebox?

We are talking about a 30-year projection. There is no need to have housing for 300,000 more people this year or even in 10 years. 300,000 people is probably around 110,000 housing units, maybe only 100,000, given the current average household size of 2.9, and some people living in shared accommodations. That's around 3,600 housing units per year.

Let's assume 1,200 single-family/semi-detached houses, 1,200 in townhome/low-rise developments and 1,200 in mid-rise/high-rise developments, each per year. That's maybe 30-40 townhome/low-rise projects (depending on the size mix) and 5-10 mid-rise/high-rise projects, again depending on the mix. Averages for 30 years, lower in the near future and higher in the 2040s. Those numbers are really not stunningly high.

[Bytor]

I know that many things people not already involved in urban planning-adjacent thing don't realise that municipal governments can not do a lot of things that they want them to do because municipal governments have not been granted the necessary powers. Where does requiring developers to include affordable units come in to things? I know CoK prefers the bonusing arrangement in place now, but if City Council wanted to, would they legally be able to pass a by law saying the X% of units in new buildings must be affordable? Or does the Province now allow that?

[danbrotherston]

Maybe I am wrong and the region can accommodate 300,000 people in shoebox towers in the downtowns or at various midrise infill projects that take years to build due to nimby protests. In the mean time I am glad I got into the housing market a couple years ago, because prices will probably continue to skyrocket in this region due to the artificial constraint.

So, the choice is single-family housing sprawl into the farmlands, with more car-centric transportation, or everyone living in a shoebox?

We are talking about a 30-year projection. There is no need to have housing for 300,000 more people this year or even in 10 years. 300,000 people is probably around 110,000 housing units, maybe only 100,000, given the current average household size of 2.9, and some people living in shared accommodations. That's around 3,600 housing units per year.

Let's assume 1,200 single-family/semi-detached houses, 1,200 in townhome/low-rise developments and 1,200 in mid-rise/high-rise developments, each per year. That's maybe 30-40 townhome/low-rise projects (depending on the size mix) and 5-10 mid-rise/high-rise projects, again depending on the mix. Averages for 30 years, lower in the near future and higher in the 2040s. Those numbers are really not stunningly high.

How many acres of land does it take to put 1,200 single family homes? That development pattern seems disastrous to me.

We already have more than enough single family housing in the region, there is huge unmet demand for other forms, I'd rather see a 20 to 10 to 1: 2,300 midrise, 1,200 highrise, and 120 low rise homes per year.

That being said, no matter how you break it down, I think those numbers are exceptionally high compared with what is being built right now. How many townhome projects are we doing per year? I wouldn't think we're even close to that number. Even high rises would only be just barely hitting those numbers I think, and we consider this a "massive building boom".

I think the fundamental problem is that for decades (almost everyone alive and vocal right now) building has been mostly sprawl which is largely invisible. Which means all of a sudden when we are doing infil people think OMG a building boom. When really, there isn't that much being built.

Edit: Just to add some math, the smallest average lot size I was able to find was around 0.14 acres. While our new lots may be significantly smaller, we also need to account for roads and drainage, so I'd consider that a reasonable estimate. That means we would be consuming 1.5 square km in sprawl per year to build 2,500 homes. I think that is disastrous.

[Bytor]

Current minimum lot size in Kitchener is 235m² in Kitchener. Add 20% for roads and other infrastructure, about 34ha.