[rdaner]

And on that note…

Ottawa to launch catalogue of home designs to speed up house-building process

Housing Minister Sean Fraser says the plan brings back a policy from the post-Second World War era to ease the construction of new homes

www.theglobeandmail.com

More focused on multiplexes and buildings for students and seniors.

Interesting. So updated zoning in place for many jurisdictions, lower development fees in Ontario and BC, standardized designs that can cut one year off development (this will be crucial for smaller developers) and a potential decline in interest rates. A plan is coming together; we’ll see if it works. If this is widespread it will be another defining feature of the Canadian urban landscape that sets us apart in a not-so-small way from the US and Australia.

 

[allengeorge]

Interesting. So updated zoning in place for many jurisdictions, lower development fees in Ontario and BC, standardized designs that can cut one year off development (this will be crucial for smaller developers) and a potential decline in interest rates. A plan is coming together; we’ll see if it works. If this is widespread it will be another defining feature of the Canadian urban landscape that sets us apart in a not-so-small way from the US and Australia.

Let’s see. I think the only way for this to work is if there’s updated zoning in the major metro areas that makes this buildable basically “as-of-right”, low/zero interest loans, and maybe even a tax break for homeowners to convert their lot. I’m still on the fence as to how much of an impact this will make.

 

[smably]

I'm cautiously optimistic about the standardized designs. I think they have potential to help in a couple of ways. One, if they can be efficiently manufactured at scale, they could put a dent in construction costs. They might even help offset the shortage of skilled trades if they can be designed to require less labour at the job site. Two, they provide a real-world model to evaluate zoning changes against. That in turns gives the feds a simple lever to use on municipalities if their zoning updates remain overly restrictive. If a municipality zones for multiplexes but the standardized multiplex designs don't fit the zoning envelope, that's an indication that their multiplex zoning isn't realistically buildable. Housing accelerator funding could be used as a carrot for encourage further changes, with the standardized designs providing a yardstick to evaluate whether the changes go far enough.

 

[Northern Light]

Let’s see. I think the only way for this to work is if there’s updated zoning in the major metro areas that makes this buildable basically “as-of-right”, low/zero interest loans, and maybe even a tax break for homeowners to convert their lot. I’m still on the fence as to how much of an impact this will make.

I don't see this helping much.

The largest cost in any new build is land; this produces no change.

I don't see this materially lowering the cost of construction, I suppose one might save some architectural/design fees at the margins; but we don't have a single building code across all provinces; though they are similar as they mostly all reference the federal code.

But there will still have to be local professionals seeing if the design fits provincial codes, municipal zoning and other requirements. (for instance BC requires earthquake safety design measures that are not required elsewhere)

It may speed up construction if more components are pre-fabricated; but we've been able to do this type of construction for years and its never really taken off.

By and large, it looks cheap, but it also requires a high degree of precision for each pre-fab element; because any variation in measurement puts everything else out. In a pre-fab design, these are much harder to fix.

Finally, one has the problem, no developer is doing to lower their price just because they can build cheaper; they will only do so if supply exceeds demand. That is not currently foreseeable without addressing the demand side of the equation.

*****

To be clear, I don't oppose this, I'm just not sure I see it as having much of a pay off. But perhaps I shall be proven wrong.

 

[allengeorge]

The largest cost in any new build is land; this produces no change.

I can only see this helping if you already own the land. For example, you are a homeowner who wants to upzone, or someone taking over the home of a parent who has passed away and doesn’t want to flip it (my guess is that this case is rare).

But there will still have to be local professionals seeing if the design fits provincial codes, municipal zoning and other requirements. (for instance BC requires earthquake safety design measures that are not required elsewhere)

I only see this useful (and I believe I poorly stated this) “if there’s updated zoning in the major metro areas that makes this buildable basically “as-of-right””. In other words, if Toronto or Vancouver committed to allowing these designs to be built on any lot in the city with close-to-a-box-check. It is possible, but will require a lot of consultation and political will.

 

[allengeorge]

I also have to agree - broadly - with @smably’s point above: if you come up with a reasonable design that’s put together by people in the industry and planning professionals - and it turns out that you can’t build it on any lot in a major city (finances aside), then that says that these cities have overly restrictive policies, and someone should really ask “Why?” Maybe there is a reasonable answer. But more often than not I’ve seen policies live on in large organizations because that’s the way it has always been done, and no one wants to take the political or career risk to change them.

EDIT: Hell, I would tie a “New Deal for Cities” with money, to all the federal housing designs being able to be built as of right as well as a larger package of changes. And the time is right on this: cities can claim it’s arm-twisting, but the public would be ok with policies that make building easier. Also, nothing like money to suddenly make organizations really question whether their policies are that valuable.

 

[Undead]

potential decline in interest rates

Low interest rates drive prices only in one direction. Even though they allow more supply, the induced demand outstrips new construction.

 

[Northern Light]

I also have to agree - broadly - with @smably’s point above: if you come up with a reasonable design that’s put together by people in the industry and planning professionals - and it turns out that you can’t build it on any lot in a major city (finances aside), then that says that these cities have overly restrictive policies, and someone should really ask “Why?” Maybe there is a reasonable answer. But more often than not I’ve seen policies live on in large organizations because that’s the way it has always been done, and no one wants to take the political or career risk to change them.

EDIT: Hell, I would tie a “New Deal for Cities” with money, to all the federal housing designs being able to be built as of right as well as a larger package of changes. And the time is right on this: cities can claim it’s arm-twisting, but the public would be ok with policies that make building easier. Also, nothing like money to suddenly make organizations really question whether their policies are that valuable.

I've already outlined that earthquake standards apply in BC; but not elsewhere.

I would argue, a carbon copy design that fits all real-world conditions (different soils, different flood and fire risks, different earthquake and wind risks) is simply too much to ask.

 

[rdaner]

Mississauga is the latest to get Accelerator funds. I wonder how the new zoning is going to play out in the upcoming mayor’s election?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...early-113m-to-build-3-000-new-homes-1.7062645

 

[Northern Light]

Mississauga is the latest to get Accelerator funds. I wonder how the new zoning is going to play out in the upcoming mayor’s election?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...early-113m-to-build-3-000-new-homes-1.7062645

A pittance that will achieve little; I'm in favour of the 4-plexes etc; but I will say again, zoning is much easier this year than last and housing starts are way down.

Interest rates, incomes of potential buyers/renters and industry capacity have far more effect than the above; and right now that effect is very negative.

Additionally, 113M doesn't begin to build the infrastructure to support the population increase.

You could spend more than that (easily) on a single new Grid Street (that can support transit) 2km in length.

You will spend more than that on single bus garage.

Upgrading sewer/water will be more.

That doesn't get into the non-municipal costs such as expanding hospital and schools.

 

[allengeorge]

Is there a map anywhere of water/sewer capacity and how much over/under limits these pipes are? I ask, because there are a number of Toronto neighbourhoods that are substantially under their postwar populations, so there's clearly excess capacity unequally distributed across the city.

 

[artyboy123]

any thoughts on this? @Northern Light

 

[Cambry Ardship]

Is there a map anywhere of water/sewer capacity and how much over/under limits these pipes are? I ask, because there are a number of Toronto neighbourhoods that are substantially under their postwar populations, so there's clearly excess capacity unequally distributed across the city.

I believe the city will sell you that data, but they do not make it publicly available.

 

[artyboy123]

any thoughts on this? @Northern Light

haha, urban Toronto is on the CBC news now... @interchange42

 

[rdaner]

Read A. B. article on Windsor about the city turning down federal money for zoning change. This is the first case of this that I know of so track record overall is very good. I wonder if this has more to do with being strategic than opposition to zoning change?