Proud of you guys for making this video. It’s an inconvenient truth that all sorts of people don’t want to face.
@simoneh4732
2 жыл бұрын
I really like all the educational Canadian content coming from Urbanity, Paige, RM, NJB, About Here, Shifter... Did I miss anyone? You lot are running circles around traditional media.
@alexvandenberg7963
2 жыл бұрын
NIMBY’s worst nightmares.
@jonwarland272
2 жыл бұрын
I love learning about urban planning. When I look around at my city I can better understand why certain aspects are designed to be so inviting or hostile. :)
@kodo1232
2 жыл бұрын
Yess
@ddrhazy
2 жыл бұрын
Low density causes prices in SF and LA to increase not only the prices of those metros, but it also increases the housing prices of exile metros like San Bernandino, Stockton, Fresno and Palmdale.
@kateb2643
2 жыл бұрын
That's what it's like around Toronto. I've got family living in a tedious beige city you've never heard of that's 2-3 hours from Toronto during rush hour and it costs twice as much to rent there as it does in Montreal where they don't have single family zoning
@AlexCab_49
2 жыл бұрын
SF is much denser than LA though (18,000 ppl/mi^2 vs 8,800 ppl/mi^2) but SF is more expensive though here in LA we seem to be building more homes in the form of 5 over 1s
@mariusfacktor3597
2 жыл бұрын
Absolutely. LA is a tragic example of exclusionary zoning. They turned what could have been a vibrant, walkable, sunshine city into a car dependent, traffic ridden, expensive shit show. City councils are shills for the homeowners and keep denying denser housing not to mention mixed use which is seemingly unheard of here.
@AlexCab_49
2 жыл бұрын
@@mariusfacktor3597 hey stop with the doomerism. We have an election for half the city council and mayor. We have a chance to pack the city council and mayor with progressives that could change the zoning laws and help LA become a dense city.
@mariusfacktor3597
2 жыл бұрын
@@AlexCab_49 Didn't know that, thanks! I just moved to West LA, close to Santa Monica, and I researched why all the buildings were only 4 stories with no mixed use -- yep, restrictive zoning to protect the single family home values. I'll spread the word to go out and vote. I'm just very pessimistic in the long run that all the damage can be undone.
@electricerger
2 жыл бұрын
I loved how this video talked about over-regulation. Too often when we hear calls to decrease regulation, we think about carbon, sulphur, and handling toxic waste (things that make business and products more expensive in order to improve everyone's quality of life). But this is a very real type of regulation that, in contrast, only really helps the wealthy. Keeping them on the books is an acknowledgement that, despite wanting low cost wages, they're not willing to accept the cost (i.e. increased housing density or congestion).
@glock4455
2 жыл бұрын
YES, as an economics student what bugs me the most about the discussion on "affordable housing" is the lack of focus on the absurd government overreach on this topic. If the state said what cars, clothes, phones, etc. people were able to buy the public would go mad, but somehow with housing that doesn't happen
@K3end0
2 жыл бұрын
2:12 "stable neighbourhoods and other cute euphemisms" made be chuckle, great video!
@Zraknul
2 жыл бұрын
Just always respond to stable neighbourhoods with it's cruel to take horses away from fields where they can run around.
@aidanwarren4980
2 жыл бұрын
And let’s not forget about “harmonious communities”!
@riffraff3467
2 жыл бұрын
I just feel a bit doomer with each video you guys make. NIMBY's and reactionaries are always clutching pearls for the smallest things like cycling infrastructure(muh cars) or dense housing ( my 2 million $ single family house from 1945 will lose value). And sadly it seems these people always have an outspoken impact on actual urban planning. Council meetings, town hall meetings, politicians, all are dominated by this demographic. And sadly they have a vested interest in the current suburbia model .
@jozefpavlik3195
2 жыл бұрын
Just move to Europe :D
@yanDeriction
2 жыл бұрын
the federal and state governments need to have the authority to override small local interests
@riffraff3467
2 жыл бұрын
@@jozefpavlik3195 I live in Ireland. They are making good progress with cycles but its a bit slow imo. Every time there is a cycle lane built you will see rich neighborhoods literally collectively suing the county council. I think eventually it will change but I just wish it was more popular in the end of the day. There are many other transit issues. Ireland has been trying to build a metro system since 2005 and now its estimated to be done by 2030. The recent city plan is to reduce car usage by 20% by 2042 which is fking atrocious. I think we still have it better than the states/canada as we have light-rail,bus,tram(luas) infrastructure ,but eh we can do better with more widespread messaging like this :)
@raaaaaaaaaam496
2 жыл бұрын
Watch the video about liberal hypocrisy by the New York Times. It’s almost always liberal dominated cities that have these issues way more than anywhere else.
@SLow-fb3qm
2 жыл бұрын
They are exercising both their property AND Democratic rights. It’s their neighbourhood and they are controlling it market wise. That’s the ultimate socialist dream.
@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102
2 жыл бұрын
I honestly can't believe that cities across Canada include the goals of "protecting neighbourhood stability" and "character" in their official city plans and/or zoning rules. Some cities have even gone as far as to commission "neighbourhood character" studies as a part of plans for future growth. It's as though city councils across Canada are entirely made up of NIMBYs.
@eriklakeland3857
2 жыл бұрын
Well they often are made up of NIMBYs. Their pursuit of their self interest is at odds with the housing needs of their constituents.
@boosterh1113
2 жыл бұрын
Why can't you believe it? I've lived in high population turnover, constantly changing neighbourhoods, and in stable, consistent neighbourhoods, and I can tell you that the QoL in a stable neighbourhood is much higher. People know and have relationships with each other, and those relationships breed trust. That means more emotional fulfillment (from a rich social life), more practical assistance (as neighbours help each other out with problems), and greater safety (because people recognize strangers, and can tell when they don't act like normal visitors). These effects are especially pronounced for families with school-aged children, as it greatly reduces the effort and expense of after school child rearing when you can let your kids go play with their friends, confident that they can safely move through their neighbourhood on their own, and that if they do get hurt/into trouble, that essentially any adult nearby will render assistance. Conversely, high turnover neighbourhoods often end up feeling soulless and unsafe. You don't have time establish relationships with anyone except maybe your closest neighbours, and that means that your home becomes a fortress. You don't know (and thus can't trust) all of those strangers all around you, so you do most of your socializing downtown or at work, and that means that your total social life suffers, because you lack those minor, incidental engagements that arise naturally from having a relationship with the people around you. Now, I'm not saying that neighbourhood character is the be-all-and-end-all. Housing supply, affordability, economic and environmental sustainability, etc. all matter, too. But if an urban plan doesn't consider neighbourhood character and stability at all, that is a recipe for an urban hellscape.
@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102
2 жыл бұрын
@@boosterh1113 there is a difference between neighbourhoods changing rapidly overnight and evolving incrementally over time. Current North American zoning codes freeze neighbourhoods in time and don't allow them to evolve gradually in response to what's going on around them. As a result investment in neighbourhoods is either a sprinkle or a firehose. Strong towns talks about this on their blog.
@m.e.3862
2 жыл бұрын
And most of the fear is unfounded. I grew up in a suburban single family home neighborhood in the south shore of Montreal. A developer built an apartment complex in a vacant lot near my street. There was all sorts of worry about house value dropping, but in the end it didn't effect the price when my family sold the house after we all moved out
@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102
2 жыл бұрын
@GreatWhiteNorth my hometown of fake London nearly rejected a mid-rise condo downtown because it "would negatively affect the downtown heritage area" and "was contrary to the plans laid out for downtown by the London plan". While I'm not in favour of high rise- midrise condos as the go to solution to urbanise places, overly restrictive city zoning bylaws suffocate everything that makes a city, a city.
@Shifter_Cycling
2 жыл бұрын
This is such a great look at an important issue. I live in Calgary and affordability has been pretty stable is recent years, but mostly by accident. I hope everybody starts talking about the impact of supply restrictions on affordability for the future.
@jasonarthurs3885
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Tom!
@polifemo3967
2 жыл бұрын
"toronto has reached its capacity for cars, not for people" This is my favourite quote for car dependence for the whole week!
@xymaryai8283
2 жыл бұрын
my alarm always goes off when people complain about excessive regulation, but for specifically non-safety, idealistically motivated zoning, it is fair.
@Maxime_K-G
Жыл бұрын
Regulations should only exist where it makes sense, not as a means for exclusion.
@AlohaBiatch
2 жыл бұрын
I think the most important point is that the problem with induced demand for cars is that you have a choice between car, transit and maybe cycling or walking. Having a fast congestion free road incentivizes you to live far away and use a car. With housing this does not happen because there are no alternatives. You have a job in city X, you need to live within commuting time of that workplace. It's not a choice that you compare with hotels, camping etc..
@blubaughmr
2 жыл бұрын
If people had to pay as much to use the road as they pay for housing, those freeways would be empty! It's the "freeness" (I know that's not a word) that is the problem.
@enterprisestobart
2 жыл бұрын
@@blubaughmr you hit the nail on the head - I wish that multi-lane non-turning roads were never built as it would significantly reduce car dependency.
@johnathin0061892
2 жыл бұрын
Violent crime, poor schools, high taxes and high cost of living makes people want (or need) to live outside of cities, not the roads themselves. Especially the crime and poor schools.
@AlohaBiatch
2 жыл бұрын
@@johnathin0061892 city centers are normally the most valuable and nice places to live in. The US is the odd country out because through failed policies of suburbanization, corrupt police, making certain neighborhoods segregated by race etc… it has led to city centers having a bad image. Go to most European cities and the « bad » areas are in the suburbs
@patriot9487
2 жыл бұрын
@@johnathin0061892 stroads cause those issues
@ryanforletta2351
2 жыл бұрын
I love the research based approach to Urban planning videos that y’all take. Also, I love the language videos! I just graduated as a Linguistics and Spanish double major. And now I’m learning French :)
@filiaaut
2 жыл бұрын
Bon courage !
@squelchedotter
2 жыл бұрын
I do think induced demand applies to not house prices, but single family urban sprawl. Allowing new areas to be developed reduces the pressure to densify existing neighborhoods, which eats up the new supply quickly. And just like infinitely wide highways the costs to society quickly skyrocket.
@jasonriddell
2 жыл бұрын
I came here to post that and that NEW housing drives NEW demand OR induced demand but we WANT the induced demand in housing JUST NOT cars
@gamarad
2 жыл бұрын
Even though a lot of the land in Old Toronto is technically zoned for multi family use, because of OPA 320 it’s difficult to build anything other than single family detached
@weatheranddarkness
2 жыл бұрын
Oh, that’s interesting!
@jerw7671
2 жыл бұрын
I live in a semi-detached home in Toronto and I have sometimes seen others in my neighbourhood demolished and replaced with single family mansions.
@Alex_Plante
2 жыл бұрын
In many bedroom communities, young adults move out and are busy at work or study. Even middle-aged adults with teens or whose children are in their early 20s tend to be extremely busy. So the only people who have time to lobby local politicians are retirees who have been living in the neighbourhood for 20 or 30 years, and want nothing to change, essentially because of nostalgia, and also because most people under-save for their retirement, so the only retirement "savings" they have is the appreciation in value of their single detached home and they fear that any change will lower the value of their home.
@LimeyLassen
2 жыл бұрын
And it's only a "savings" in the sense that someone is willing to buy it.
@idromano
2 жыл бұрын
@@LimeyLassen ...for the price the owner is asking. A 2-million house will only cost that much once someone pays for it.
@DerrickJolicoeur
2 жыл бұрын
I literally just had a 5 hour long conversation about exactly this last night and came to similar conclusions from simple thought experiments. Really happy to see that the research seems to support my hypothesis. TL;DR: Building code politics to protect the wealthy are destroying our cities in literally every respect.
@thepaulygoodness347
2 жыл бұрын
"Don Valley parking lot" Take my upvote!
@polifemo3967
2 жыл бұрын
I really liked this video, its all the questions I didn't know I had about housing and induced demand! I thought it woul be even better if the sections were timestamped, so I took the liberty to do that, and to give each section what I thought would be a good name : ) 0:00 Induced Traffic 0:48 Would more houses make housing prices higher? 1:38 Building more houses reduces the housing price 2:48 rising prices and elasticity 3:58 Zoning makes houses expensive 4:47 New housing and Gentrification 6:47 Cars are hard to accomodate 8:06 Houses are easier to build up 9:04 Recap 10:13 Conclusions 10:58 A note on private building of houses 11:44 Credits
@mdhazeldine
2 жыл бұрын
Great topic. Canada definitely needs to embrace mixed zoning and mid rise, medium density housing. It's crazy that you have massive condo towers sitting right next to single family homes so often. There is a big missing middle.
@yanDeriction
2 жыл бұрын
aesthetics and "historical reasons" are huge loopholes for suppressing housing development that should not be legitimized. Unless a city is completely reliant on tourists who visit exclusively for the small building aesthetic (most cities aren't), height limits always do more harm than good. The same whining about eyesores is also used to block windmills, elevated rail, and other critical infrastructure necessary for progress.
@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102
2 жыл бұрын
Most detached single family homes (even those in historic neighbourhoods) aren't even all that particularly interesting.
@hackarma2072
2 жыл бұрын
Even Kyoto that rely heavily on the small buildings aesthetic has real issues.
@ChemySh
2 жыл бұрын
@@hackarma2072 lol, was about to mention Kyoto. To clarify for other viewers: Kyoto is a big tourism city that enforces small building aesthetics to maintain its local character, but it's also causing the local govt to go into budget deficit due to lack of tax density. (Weirdly enough, the same Kyoto local govt isnt doing enough to maintain/upgrade these charming small townhouses to modern construction standards (structural integrity, insulation, etc) despite some grassroot entrepreneurs already doing so.)
@FunkBison
2 жыл бұрын
Holy crap this is the best summation of the issues surround housing affordability AND induced traffic demand I've ever seen or read. Kudos!
@_Matt_Matt_365_
2 жыл бұрын
Oh wow! You guys went through more detail than expected! It's awesome!
@Theincredibledrummer
2 жыл бұрын
Always a good time when my home town of Auckland is mentioned. We have in the past few years liberalised our zoning rules and are now building a lot of mid rise townhouses and apartments. This is helping with housing affordability but we are playing catch up big time so everything is still so expensive
@KarmaKreamer
2 жыл бұрын
Canadian content about housing? As a Vancouverite, colour me thrilled. Thanks for putting this research together!
@LisaBeergutHolst
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting how "stable neighborhoods" doesn't include stable housing prices for some reason.
@jasonriddell
2 жыл бұрын
ohh it does include "stable" housing prices as in HIGH and stably going higher
@EnbyFranziskaNagel
2 жыл бұрын
@@cmmartti dC/dt = constant. C(t) shows a strictly monotonuos growth.
@bopete3204
2 жыл бұрын
The research done for this video is awesome! You deserve so many more views.
@wojogo
2 жыл бұрын
You two speak with a clarity structure and directness that is remarkable. Your script would be a great essay.
@ex0stasis72
2 жыл бұрын
This was super interesting and challenged my preconceptions of new housing and risk of gentrification.
@UniquelyUnseen
2 жыл бұрын
Really happy to see people talking about this, great job! It depends on what is built and under what conditions, there definitely can be induced demand especially when North American zoning laws are restrictive by design.
@jarjarbinks6018
2 жыл бұрын
Good long distance public transit also gives workers options. Back when Tokyo had very expensive real estate but elastic housing supply the Shinkansen helped supercomputers from more rural/smaller cities commute into Tokyo without having to buy an expensive dwelling there
@Alpine1
2 жыл бұрын
I just discovered your channel, I'm loving every second! I'm also an Ottawa-based KZitemr, I talk about real applications of architecture, urban planning, and engineering in cities & buildings, but through the lens of the video game Minecraft. Love your content, I'm going to binge watch after I'm done working!
@MegaLokopo
Жыл бұрын
The big problem with housing is pricing only goes down when units are empty and units are only empty when the growth in supply in housing outpaces the growth in demand.
@ddrhazy
2 жыл бұрын
Low densest housing in pricey housing markets like SF and LA increases not only the housing prices of those metros, but it also increases the housing prices of exile metros like San Bernandino, Stockton, Fresno and Palmdale.
@roseoverdose6451
2 жыл бұрын
i will NEVER liberalize housing regulations... but i WILL subscribe. thank you.
@selfreference2
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine a massive 5,000 person housing complex opens up. There's thousands of open units and rents slowly drop for years in the area until they're filled. Once the unit is filled, prices go back up to a little lower than they were before. No one moved into town to fill these spaces. It's just from children moving out/splitting up roommates/moving closer to work/etc. So we see a big drop, followed by a slow uptick back to the mean. This is pretty much exactly what happens when a new road gets built. Massive flood of capacity comes to a region. At first, few people are equipped to use it. Then, people move into the surrounding regions to take advantage of it. And the advantage slowly reduces. The highway encourages people to move to the far reaches of town, which negates its own advantage. Building suburban developments on the far reaches of town encourages people to lose tangible benefits that don't have a specific monetary value and are hard to measure. So it isn't as visible, but is certainly felt. Similarly, we could also talk about improvements that do the opposite. A new high rise encourages people to move downtown and live at higher density configurations, decreasing demand in other regions doubly by both increasing supply and getting people to live on less square footage. Similarly, a new downtown train encourages people to move downtown and take fewer car trips.
@leopoldleoleo
2 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video effectively synthesizing a lot of threads and citing some classics of research (UCLA study, Shoup) The depopulation maps are especially insane
@danwylie-sears1134
2 жыл бұрын
If building more capacity to get people from point A to point B means that enough more people do so to use all the additional capacity, that means that there's enough demand to justify the expansion. I think the real problem is that a four-lane parking lot with basically zero throughput has essentially the same number of people getting from A to B as a two-lane parking lot with basically zero throughput. On housing, it's not just building new buildings. It's also making housing available. If someone has a house that's twice the size they need, splitting it into a duplex and renting the other half would make sense. Policy should actively support such use, not just allow it -- and certainly shouldn't prohibit it.
@squee222
2 жыл бұрын
"Free things are more likely to run out of supply. " - That's it. If Houses were free I'd own three...
@philippemiller4740
2 жыл бұрын
I love your videos!🙃 keep up the good work 👌
@stevemattiussi
2 жыл бұрын
YES. Thank you for using Powell St. as an example! 5:25
@scarbotheblacksheep9520
2 жыл бұрын
One problem for high-density housing that needs some solution: soundproofing. People can have a rather normal level of noise but if the units are not well soundproofed then complaints happen. This might drive people towards low-density housing unnecessarily.
@andyb2339
2 жыл бұрын
Soundproofing is so important! I recently visited at my sister's apartment in Oakland, CA where the temperate climate allows single pane windows. The noise from the park was deafening! I normally live in New York City next to the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. It's much quieter here though due to the double pane windows and a concrete promenade walkway covering the highway.
@MrBirdnose
2 жыл бұрын
One of the reasons I'm glad to currently be renting a single-family house is a previous apartment where I couldn't even talk in a normal voice without getting complaints from the neighbors. I think townhomes can be nearly as good if properly constructed. Flats will always have problems with people above/below.
2 жыл бұрын
@@MrBirdnose Not necessarily. The previous apartment I was living in was built quickly and cheaply in the '50s and I did hear every step from above (which, given that they had a toddler, was a lot of steps). But my current one was built in the last decade with much better materials and technologies, and there's nary a peep from the neighbors.
@AaronSmith-sx4ez
2 жыл бұрын
The restrictions on high density residential are problems. But another problem not talked about is location. Politicians zone shopping, work and residential separately...so you this forces you to drive. If they had mixed use zoning where you could work/live/shop in the same walkable area, that would dramatically reduce the need for cars.
@nate4fish
2 жыл бұрын
Even if it doesn’t reduce the desire for cars it would increase the utilization of parking. Commercial office parking is empty more than it’s occupied unless there’s some other usage of the spaces
@MrVlad0978
2 жыл бұрын
8000 people/sq km are rookie numbers. Most neighbourhoods in Athens, Greece go above 10.000 and that's with essentially no skyscrapers. It's that there are few single family homes around, (with the exception of the ultra-rich neighbourhoods), and most of them have no space between them and the neighbouring buildings.
@TheTroyc1982
2 жыл бұрын
Your best video yet
@richdobbs6595
2 жыл бұрын
"Induced Demand" is just a normal economic behavior for something that is provided without any real market forces.
@Hiro_Trevelyan
2 жыл бұрын
Your videos are so well explained, thank you for your work !
@6ixof135
2 жыл бұрын
I think you two are creating some great content on this channel! I wonder if you’d be open to doing a follow-up video to this one discussing the ways in which Canada’s tax structure is particularly “friendly” to real estate investors (foreign and domestic), and the ways in which this has exacerbated supply and price issues for homebuyers and renters in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
@koertdubois6781
2 жыл бұрын
I love the statement towards the end that says, even if new developments due induce demand for housing, at least we can stack homes more efficiently than we stack freeways. Why stack anything if it's not filling a gap in our housing needs? We desperately need sustainable non-subsidized affordable housing for low-wage workers, not luxury housing that only the children of the wealthy can afford.
@johnbolen5807
2 жыл бұрын
The neighborhoods around me all expect community involvement and input for any new project and I can't imagine the entitlement that comes with that.
@simoneh4732
2 жыл бұрын
Detached houses on big lots kind of are the housing equivalent of personal automobiles for transportation. Not space efficient at all, and building another subdivision further from the urban core (like building another lane) is a never ending cycle that degrades cities just like huge roads.
@derosa1989
2 жыл бұрын
The type of housing being constructed significantly impacts cost. Land is a market-priced input, and the actual cost per square foot of construction can be very high, given the codes, planning regulations, and building standards. High rise reduces the amount of land required to add housing units, but it can cost up to $100,000 per underground parking space to build in urban areas. "New" housing is the most expensive type of housing, and the "old" housing in most cities is often located centrally, close to the best amenities, and therefore also very expensive. The only people who benefit from lower housing prices are the people who don't own a home or condo. There are many factors that make housing affordability a difficult problem to solve, besides moving to a city in decline where the housing market has excess supply due to depopulation.
@OhTheUrbanity
2 жыл бұрын
Your point about parking is an important one. We need to eliminate minimum parking requirements to allow for more affordable housing. If people want to pay more for a parking space then that's fine, but it shouldn't be required.
@derosa1989
2 жыл бұрын
@@OhTheUrbanity When i moved to a newly mixed use development, the supposedly "bicycle friendly" rental building in BC a few years ago from Toronto, they wouldn't let me sign the lease without renting a parking space for $75/month, despite the fact i had no car. After the first year, ($900 later!) they only relented because they had so many requests from other residents who wanted to rent a second space, and could rent out my unused space for even more money. I've lived here car-free, despite a walk-score of 25 and bike-score of 59, because i'm committed to it, but even progressive developers are still finding the market very auto-centric.
@DanCapostagno
2 жыл бұрын
I think there should be more discussion of housing as a speculative asset, which especially affects the large cities with good reputations. Especially if we're using Vancouver as an example. There's a one-two punch of the luxury condominium high-rises being bought as a speculative asset (both by the wealthy domestic and international clientele, neither of whom will ever occupy them as their primary residence) and the NIMBYism of the locals in the low density area that are using their property values as a piggy bank for their own personal wealth. And the local government, regardless of party or stated political leaning, is going to have the moneyed interests contributing to their campaigns or the campaigns of their opponents.
@someguy255
2 жыл бұрын
They can only speculate because they know the supply will remain constricted. If you went grocery shopping and the price for a loaf of bread was 20 dollars you’d go somewhere else. Now imagine those are the only loafs of bread in any direction for 100 miles. You’d have no choice but to pay up. The solution is baking more bread. That is the housing situation we have today. Baking = building and it’s time to let the bakers bake!
@lemairel1792
2 жыл бұрын
You should talk about how building skyscrappers is more expensive per square meter to build than low and medium rise. It is somewhat related to the missing middle, and also explains why cities like Toronto and Vancouver are so expensive. They have a lot of single family zoning where large lots are used to build a single dwelling which are expensive because of land prices. In the downtown were the zonning allows it, skyscrappers are build which are expensive because of high construction cost. It is kinda related to what you were saying in the videos, cities with a lot of regulations are expensive because they dont let the market balance itself.
@derosa1989
2 жыл бұрын
the system of financing new urban high rise construction works as an incentive for higher prices too. The developer buys the land with their own money, and begins the planning process. Construction is financed later by bank loans, so the high cost of construction and low interest rates means the developer is happy to build high priced units made expensive by complex urban construction - as long as they sell in the market, their customers are paying, not them. The high construction cost just makes them more money. Building lower priced units on the same land cost makes the development less profitable - why would they want that? It's a big problem when a city needs lower cost options. This system encourages developers to buy as little land as possible to save their investment cost, and then they try to get permission to build as many units on that land as possible, and we end up with cities full of tiny high rise units.
@paxundpeace9970
2 жыл бұрын
The big issue is that low income residents are often renters. With any improvement in the neighborhood they fear that it gets more attractive and in effect later more expensive. I don't blame them, many places in america are not rent controlled. In Europe on the opposite a large portion of buildings are owned by non- profits renter-owner or city owned co-operations.
@OhTheUrbanity
2 жыл бұрын
In the video we cite some studies finding that, although many people have the worry that new housing will increase rents in a neighbourhood, it doesn't seem to work like that.
@MehdiPiltan
2 жыл бұрын
Great job of using facts and evidence
@Crustenscharbap
2 жыл бұрын
Its very important when a city build many houses it must built infrastructure too. I mean schools, parks, hopsitals ec. Germany built most homes about 4-7 stories high because its way more human to live there and there is more sunlight. They calculated the street width depend on buildings height so that the lowest flat get sunlight in the Christmas Holidays. We call this Traufhöhe. Its exactly 22m. With this method we get about 14000 people per km². Thats really high dense. More dense than the center of Torrnto. Also its much cheaper to built a 6 story house than a 20 story per 1m². These 22m areas are really, really popular. Kreuzberg, Friedrichshain, Prenzlauer Berg etc. Its really good to build living areas with 4-7 stories buildings. Berlin also has a lot of areas with 11 and 18 storys buildings built in the 80s. These are way more unattractive. (Marzahn, Märkisches Viertel)
@tonyflorio3269
2 жыл бұрын
It's common to think big business interests should not dominate public policy, but we tolerate people with home equity dominating planning decisions that seem to be a huge contributor to the housing affordability issue. Can't imagine that will continue as it's a generational conflict -- artificial scarcity unfairly benefits one group over the other.
@mariusfacktor3597
2 жыл бұрын
This video is exactly what everyone in North America needs to watch. I didn't learn about exclusionary zoning until college. It should be discussed at every grade level in elementary school and high school. It's a long-standing, historically-racist plague that is crushing what could be sustainable, affordable cities. City councils that side with NIMBYs are the ultimate failure of governance. Making laws to protect rich people's property instead of governing for the good of everyone. It's sickening and we have to demand that it ends now.
@groundzero_-lm4md
2 жыл бұрын
It's simple. When the price is free, damand is infinite. Housing isn't free even if it is affordable. If we keep building enough housing it won't be seen as as viable investment either.
@hepthegreat4005
2 жыл бұрын
Go look at China. And tell me that building more fixes prices.
@woozie164
2 жыл бұрын
@@hepthegreat4005 China is a pretty interesting case: plenty of housing is getting built, but it's unaffordable to many, and prices keep going up. Why does this happen? Well, housing happens to be one of the more 'stable' investments in China, so everyone parks their money there. I guess part of the issue is that there isn't enough good alternative investments in China, so people just pour more money into the housing market. It's gone so far that the housing that is getting built isn't necessary livable/usable, it's just a way to create additional financial assets people can invest into.
@PaigeMTL
2 жыл бұрын
@@hepthegreat4005 "go look at outlier" isn't a good way to form policy, we do studies on multiple locations because there will always be exceptions to the rule due to unusual circumstances. It's more interesting for Canadians to know what studies from other liberal democracies like the US, Australia or the UK say than China. BTW, I think China will have a price correction on their housing if they sustain vacancy rates over 10%.
@elimarshall1497
2 жыл бұрын
@@hepthegreat4005 A good example is Tokyo. People in Japan don’t view houses as investments and their zoning laws are very relaxed so any kind of housing can be built mostly anywhere. Tokyo is very affordable compared to other similar major cities in other countries.
@gsvick
2 жыл бұрын
"Don't forget to liberalize housing regulations and subscribe." In that order?
@warlander7450
2 жыл бұрын
@Oh The Urbanity! - could you check your sound mixing in video please? While the video itself is great, constant unpleasant noise can be heard in the background.
@quinnp8493
2 жыл бұрын
More, cheaper housing does induce demand. But in the case of cities this comes in the form of population growth. If rent was ~1k in New York a lot more people would want to live there. Conversely at 4k rent in San Francisco even an economic boom doesnt stop people from moving away. The difference is that more people driving is a negative externality, whereas a city growing is a positive one. To really get prices lower it's import not just build homes people who are already here might want to move. You need to flood the market with new housing until homes aren't being bought quickly, at that point prices start to drop. This however is a good thing known as a booming city and economy. Whereas really reducing congestion would require ridiculously large amounts of car related infrastructure ex towns of 50k in the Midwest with 6 lanes downtown do reduce congestion, at the cost of wrecking said towns.
@57thorns
2 жыл бұрын
The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce traffic. So a combination of congestion charges and good public transit. The ideal cost for driving in a city should be about the same as taking a taxi, enough to discourage frivolous use, but low enough that you can afford it if you really have to. For people with disabilities and other cases provisions can be taken (and living inside the congestion zone is _not_ a disability).
@SLow-fb3qm
2 жыл бұрын
New York has a 50 year depopulation trajectory. San Francisco has lost over 2/3 of all children due to too small unit builds.
@MrBirdnose
2 жыл бұрын
@@SLow-fb3qm - After having lived in apartments below people with children I don't think children belong in dense urban environments. Neither do dogs.
@bobbycrosby9765
2 жыл бұрын
Most of these markets are already in the frothy housing-as-an-investment stage though. It would take a huge building boom to both exhaust the demand *and* send a message to investors that we don't care about their investment - which would be very difficult politically.
@dominiccasts
2 жыл бұрын
The main issue I see that would have to be resolved is dealing with the fact that, at least in Vancouver, the value of housing is also necessary for retirement, largely because assisted living subsidies are means-tested and the overall cost of living has gone up considerably despite wage and pension stagnation. I don't know how that would be fixed, I would think making assisted living fully publicly funded and possibly increasing CPP payouts would help, but honestly I don't know what the numbers are on that. Granted, I would also be surprised if the bottom just suddenly fell out, I'd expect more of a stabilization and gradual, if somewhat yo-yoing, decline of prices, as each reduction in prices would also bring in new buyers, which would buoy the prices again.
@nate4fish
2 жыл бұрын
The most common scenario for tearing down and building back denser is a natural disaster such as fire or the building reaches the end of its life and the owner can either do a spendy rehab project or build a new structure. Cities are usually stuck with the previous generations layout but can remake the areas built by the generation prior.
@thomasblyth7539
2 жыл бұрын
The other thing is that if induced demand applies to housing is that multi-family housing is more like a bus or transit line and single family housing are more like cars.
@chickennoodle6620
2 жыл бұрын
Great video and I like how you used academic sources to support your argument. You've got another subscriber in me. In Australia, there is a real problem with regulations meaning that realistically, mostly apartment blocks or single family housing gets built. Councils actually get elected on 'preventing development'. However, there is more subdivision lately, with single family blocks being redeveloped as multiple townhouses, but we never have the aesthetically pleasing multiplexes that you see in Europe or Montreal unless you go to areas which developed in the 19th century.
@borticus101
2 жыл бұрын
Are you able to take a closer look at Edmonton? I just bought a house there and the capital of "Canada's Texas" builds apartments and townhouses everywhere.
@flakgun153
2 жыл бұрын
Induced demand is a weird way to say Supply and Demand. More housing does mean more people moving there, and there will be an increase in demand as housing gets cheaper and more available. But that's fine. The increase in supply always beats out the increase in demand. Build build build.
@57thorns
2 жыл бұрын
The thing about induced demand really only holds water for things that cost nothing to use, like roads.
@derosa1989
2 жыл бұрын
not everything increases in demand as it gets cheaper. Housing in Canada has become like Veblen goods, demand increases as prices go up, because of social pressure, and the potential investment profit. Home ownership has become like the stock market, buy today before the price goes up tomorrow.
@spencergraham-thille9896
2 жыл бұрын
Induced demand is a misnomer, imo. It's really induced consumption.
@andrewcanuck6417
2 жыл бұрын
Canada also immigrates 400000+ persons a year, the vast majority whom choose to live in it's major cities. Without this supply of new persons requiring living spaces the housing markets in all of Canada's cities would be very different. Immigration and emigration also strongly affect housing prices.
@SimeonFrank
2 жыл бұрын
I wish I could give this video 10 thumbs up.
@paxundpeace9970
2 жыл бұрын
About here was made some videos on this topic too. This issue is that does buildings are condos to buy and Vancouver does lack purpose build rentals. In fact over the last 50 years number of affordable rental you needs decreased because many habd torn down.
@NFvidoJagg2
Жыл бұрын
Halifax has been facing a similar problem over the last couple years. With a sudden increase in population and insufficient housing being built. The kicker is zoning restrictions mean new housing is usually high-rise or SFH. and people like to complain that the city is becoming like Toronto. :P
@shauncameron8390
Жыл бұрын
While the people who moved in came from Toronto.
@Galactico42
2 жыл бұрын
My city (Western US) has a bad combination of single-family zoning (though hopefully soon mitigated by a new ADU allowance) and parking requirements that inflate construction costs of new multi-family projects.
@jasonriddell
2 жыл бұрын
I moved to Winnipeg 12 years ago and I personally think we are getting it BETTER then some places - by accident I live in an inner neighbourhood of single family homes built 100 years ago and there are "missing middle" apartments in the neighbourhood and a FEW town homes they allow multi-family homes on bigger lots and every NEW build is a ether a single family "san Francisco" house on a cut in half lot OR semi-detached / or even "block of four" not one new build is a "full width" single family house except ONE right on the river and sold for $900K and was a 150K "shack" when I bought my house in Winnipeg there are a LOT of semi-detached homes build in the 60 through to the 80's whole streets fresh built with them NOT infill but planned from the beginning as 90's and newer areas are 100% apartment OR singe family homes of LARGE square footage
@joshogden3105
Жыл бұрын
I saw an interesting video talking about how zoning has helped the German and Japanese housing markets, among others, to remain very stable, when so many other countries have seen prices skyrocket way faster than inflation. That would be an interesting topic to hear your perspective on.
@andrewjensen8189
Жыл бұрын
Another important thing with affordable housing is that aside from subsidized rental units, you can't build a new affordable complex. You need a 20+ year old unit in order to have cheap units. So we dug our grave 20 years ago, when we started producing too few new units. These new expensive units will become relatively affordable in 20 years compared to the new buildings that will be built in 20 years.
@Superchickenman159
2 жыл бұрын
the rlb crane index from 2018?! i did that survey for a couple of years for toronto, those are my numbers! you're welcome! : )
@zinedinezethro9157
2 жыл бұрын
one of the main reason for people here in Indonesia to oppose new housing development is because of congestion. this problem got explained really well here with the: "the city is full for cars, but not people". my neighborhood only have about 20.000 people, yet almost every other house have cars or motrocycles, many even several. can't really blame them though, there's no public transport of anykind for miles, and not even pedestrian infrastructure. it's just houses next to 5 meters wide of paved roads. you really can't live without a car here. the nearest shops and convenience stores are at least 600-700 meters away and that's having to go through a 4 lane road of 60 km/h speed limit without any kind of sidewalks. so not even biking is possible. it's kinda sad to me that for the island i live in, Java, it has 145 million people (yes, more than even russia), yet we kept on building auto-centric cities and suburbs with emphasis on everyone having cars. a new housing complex near my neighborhood, is literally just a more compact version of a generic north american suburbs with single family housings, relatively wide roads, and garages just everywhere. no bus connection, no nothing. they didnt even bother to make any sidewalks. some places are trying to improve, Jakarta have LRTs and MRTs now, Transjakarta BRT system is also really good. but with 35 million people and counting in the metropolitan area alone, it's just not enough. it's not even close to enough. this coupled with more developments that just revolves on single family housings and more emphasis on owning cars/motorbikes, no wonder Jakarta is so heavily congested.
@garplox9
2 жыл бұрын
Love your videos! I'm from Montreal and I've recently been getting into a lot of discussions with a friend who works in policy for accessibility. They argue that reducing car access to streets like Mont-Royal Ave by closing the street is very bad for accessibility, because people can't be dropped off in front of the store they are trying to get to. I would argue that parking is simple on a side street just around the corner, and that the minimal distance needed to travel between the car and the door could definitely be improved by better sidewalks and better snow clearing. What are your thoughts on the tension between accessible cities and reducing car access to city cores?
@eriklakeland3857
2 жыл бұрын
Accessibility to many people means being able to go directly in front of their destination and have a sea of free parking spaces waiting for them. They've never known anything different.
@nickwoo2
2 жыл бұрын
I think we should restrict how many homes or apartment buildings a company or individuals can own.
@OhTheUrbanity
2 жыл бұрын
That doesn't increase supply though, it just shifts supply from the rental market to being available to buy. Maybe that's a good thing, but I don't think it's the core issue.
@TheTroyc1982
2 жыл бұрын
why do that when we can increase housing supply pretty quickly by removing restrictions
@wakaflocka37
2 жыл бұрын
Also, it's a heck of a lot easier to double my use of roads than it is to double my use of housing. Bigger roads just subsidize people that live far from things and road use is a lot more elastic than housing use for obvious reasons
@erichendry3327
2 жыл бұрын
Great video and an urgently important policy problem that Canadian cities need to address.
@sangokudbz79
2 жыл бұрын
The drone shots are very nice! Great video, but I have a mixed feeling about the ending. In my book, building new subsidised building is a form of regulation, which seems be contrary to that the rest of the video says. I know it's not all black or white don't get me wrong, but I still can't wrap my mind around this concept
@OhTheUrbanity
2 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't classify government investments in public or co-op housing as being like regulation. Public housing and co-ops add to the housing supply, but they don't stop private development from also happening. With that said, in this video we're not taking an ideological position that regulation is inherently bad. Rather, we're saying it's important to consider the side-effects and unintended consequences of regulations.
@MartinPittBradley
2 жыл бұрын
I’m in your side, but here’s the problem with blaming “induced demand”: Everything you described is increased economic activity. Commuting further to higher-pay jobs... Additional trips to do X... Buying a car... The argument shouldn’t be to deny he effect but to point out that it might be steroids for growth.
@TheProcrastinator6
2 жыл бұрын
traffic congestion also decreases economic activity, so the long commutes are actually a negative to economic growth as it prohibits economic activity
@enterprisestobart
2 жыл бұрын
Have you heard of the broken window fallacy? If so then you would know that the likes of public transport and multi-use housing is more efficent at stimulating economic growth than car-centric suburbs and transport (both have been found to increase CO2 emisions and long term larger commute times)
@PetarEconomics
2 жыл бұрын
When thinking about our car-dominated cities, I wonder how many people would choose to ditch the car if given viable reliable alternative transport instead. Especially if we can start getting more bus lanes in order to make buses more efficient, I don't see how people wouldn't take more bus trips. Canberra put in a tram a few years back and it's been a great success, and it's allowed the corridor around the tram to build up with more apartments, and the city centre has expanded and gobbled up more open-air carparks, which makes the city look so much better.
@afgor1088
2 жыл бұрын
Almost everyone. There's nothing fundimental different between Americans and the Dutch. Put Americans in dutch style cities and they'd ditch their cars
@MrBirdnose
2 жыл бұрын
@@afgor1088 - I think it'd depend on the city. In California it's wise to have access to a car in case you have to evacuate due to a wildfire, for example.
@reneotten2449
2 жыл бұрын
@@afgor1088 everyone who don't like driving a car.. still around 500 cars per 1000 in the Netherlands (Amsterdam 250 per 1000 residents)
@afgor1088
2 жыл бұрын
@@reneotten2449 so... A minority ok
@rosskgilmour
2 жыл бұрын
The lesson here is that cities are dynamic places and those who deny cities that dynamism make life in the city more difficult and expensive
@Foobarski
Жыл бұрын
I look at this way. Building new roads encourages people to commute using the least space efficient means of transport. Building more detached homes with large lot sizes encourages the least space efficient dwellings. Building new roads and building low density neighborhoods are two sides of the same coin and not some paradox to be explained.
@JorgeOrpinel
2 жыл бұрын
The correct comparison would be in the Price axis i.e. congestion time reduction in the case of induced traffic vs housing affordability in the case of induced population (traffic and population are in the Quantity axis). And yes, it applies to any market! In really comes down to which induced phenomenon is desirable: do we want more cars (= less density and efficiency)? Or do we want denser cities (= -cars, +efficiency)?
@alex_zetsu
2 жыл бұрын
Induced demand applies to nearly everything, the question is if it happens to such a degree you end up with the Jevons paradox. So without even a study we know road expansion will induce demand in any place where demand isn't 0, but without an empirical study you don't know if the demand will eat up some or all of the extra capacity.
@teraymarine148
2 жыл бұрын
One question - are there any cities that build *good* housing (because I've seen tons of bland urban prisons) for lower income families with some kind of rent control? In Houston, inner-city middle housing with sky-high rents tends to only displace most of the current minority residents to either the suburbs or monolithic apartments.
@2kbk926
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, pretty much all Western European cities do this to some extent, and the places that do the most of it are, coincidentally, the places where housing crises are least common.
@JMiskovsky
2 жыл бұрын
I would love Land Value Tax with 1st property tax reduction for Persons living in that house.
@gabrielmassicotte-rochon6920
2 жыл бұрын
This is so true and sad at the same time. The problem is also that the people who already been owning a home for a long time benefit so much from housing scarcity because they become rich. Anything that can make their confortable retirement go away must be take down. I believe it is one of the reasons that it would take a big societal change to build more houses because the politicians who rule also have an interest because they become rich too with the rising price of homes. That's why their solution to the housing affordability is giving candy to new house buyers like the RSP that can be converted into a loan and all and not building more housing which would fix the problem. They don't want the problem to be fixed because that would mean they become less rich... In the neighbourhood where my parents live it is only single family housing in the far suburb of Ottawa and all the houses are extremely unaffordable so contractors there took advantage of the zoning and started building more semi detached homes. My parents neighbors would then complain to them how these semi detached would affect the price of their homes. I believe it is really the root of the problem... Good old greed
@kofola9145
2 жыл бұрын
Now we are thinking.
@PlayMyMusicPlaylist
2 жыл бұрын
You build more houses then house horders from domestic and international will buy them in bulk. The problem is OPM or Buy Renovate Rent Refinance Repeat or known as (BRRRR). This is the same problem as in Australia. Ban foreign buyer and corporate buying residential houses.
@TheTroyc1982
2 жыл бұрын
New Zealand banned foreign ownership and prices skyrocketed
@derosa1989
2 жыл бұрын
the problem in Canada is that we have a very high rate of home ownership, which motivates these people to support policies that contribute to the rising cost of housing. They love it when their house doubles and triples in value.
@adanactnomew7085
2 жыл бұрын
Demand also matters. That is to say reducing immigration would make housing more affordable. We can't expect to have affordable housing housing more people are moving into a country than new housing is being built.
@AlexCab_49
2 жыл бұрын
State governments need to step in to help fix the issues which is already happening here in California with the passage of sb9 and 10. But the state also needs to weaken nimbyism to the point they are powerless.
@eriklakeland3857
2 жыл бұрын
People use "private property rights" as an excuse to bully and control properties they don't own.
@AlexCab_49
2 жыл бұрын
@@eriklakeland3857 exactly and they forget eminent domain exists and has been used for urban renewal projects and highway construction.
@123cp8
2 жыл бұрын
I love these videos. But they kind of make depressed, as I’m one of those that’s permanently priced out of the housing market. 🙁
@someguyontheinternet7856
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, yes, yes. A thousand times yes.
@pbilk
2 жыл бұрын
Do you both have any comments on Doug Ford's Highway 413 that is surrounded by a lot of controversy.
@ketch_up
2 жыл бұрын
It could be pretty hard for housing to keep up to induced demand...if housing was all free!!!
@xymaryai8283
2 жыл бұрын
TLDR: its fine bc more people are good, but its bad bc more cars are bad, hence why transit and walkability is better than more roads.
Пікірлер: 514