4 ms·

Zoning doesn't make empty units. If you took away all zoning strictures, you'd still be left with the fact that people who buy just as an investment aren't doin

by andkon 10y ago

Zoning doesn't make empty units. If you took away all zoning strictures, you'd still be left with the fact that people who buy just as an investment aren't doing much good for a neighbourhood and a city.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Zoning is what causes Vancouver to have 1/3 the density of Brooklyn. Based on this doc, I believe Vancouver (or "Vancouver A", as distinguished from the greater metro area) has about 200k units. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MV_Housing_Data_Book.pdf http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pla... It appears zoning rules, which prevent Vancouver from building up to Brooklyn levels of density (approx 3x as high), is keeping 400k units off the market. In contrast, unoccupied housing is keeping only 10k units off the market. But I'm sure the rich Chinese people are secretly to blame for this too.
- raldi 10y ago
  You're focusing on yet another externality of vacant units, that they increase the price of housing. I agree with you that this is minor compared to the way that restrictive zoning drives up the price of housing, but what about all the other negative externalities I mentioned in my comment?
- andkon 10y ago
  No, the fact that the whole lower mainland has 30% the population of NYC is why Vancouver proper has 1/3 the density of Brooklyn. Increasing density in response to rising populations is great. Increasing density in response to rising investor demand is what we've done already, and it's why we have incredibly lonely, dead neighbourhoods like Coal Harbour.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  Zoning for higher density doesn't necessarily solve this problem. Creating more supply results in more units that can potentially be purchased as an investment and left empty.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Housing is a good investment because it's illegal to make more of it. This makes the price of existing stock go up. If you legalized the production of housing that would no longer be true.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
    You're arguing that vastly increasing supply will not lower house prices?
    - Tiktaalik 10y ago
      Not at all. Adding more supply is definitely part of the solution. The problem is that adding supply takes time, there are physical limits to the rate at which supply can be added, and the level of demand is unknown. This means it's hard to know when a supply only solution will result in decreased prices and it can take a long time. (Vancouver is not SF, it adds plenty of supply and yet there is still housing shortages and high prices) If you want to fix the problem quickly, policies that increase supply and limit speculative demand will achieve results faster.
      - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
        The problem isn't going to be fixed any quicker than the time it takes for supply to be increased.
snrplfth 10y ago
The logic is that zoning makes for a housing shortage, which means it's profitable simply to hold on to properties without renting them, because the rent would be such a small portion of the investment gains. If supply increased, and moderated the price increases, then people would rent out more because they wouldn't be seeing huge year-on-year home value increases.
- andkon 10y ago
  That's definitely an alternative response. Here, we've decided that we should instead cut investors' demand of housing, rather than increasing supply proportionately in response to investor demand. Like raldi says above, it's an approach that's a little more sensitive to the fact that we have to live in the hollow feeling city that an investor class can make.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    I understand the response, certainly. But I don't think it's going to make housing (rental or ownership) substantially more available or cheaper in Vancouver - it'll just shuffle a few people around. And rich people don't just evaporate because you limit housing supply; they can arbitrage their way around most of these limits pretty easily.
gravypod 10y ago
Zoning is the cause of high housing prices. This is only an issue because there aren't enough houses to meet the demand. Zoning laws are artificial restriction to prevent deflation of home values. They also prevent people from building what has been dubbed as "tiny homes" that would allow poorer people to provide a substantial improvement to their living conditions. That is where this issue stems from. The inability to a) provide for yourself reasonable living accommodations, and b) the surprisingly huge spike in prices of homes due to the lack of homes that are required. This is what a libertarian believes (disclosure: I'm a libertarian).
- linkregister 10y ago
  I think in the absence of zoning, the affected neighborhoods would have HOAs by contract limiting building freedom. What's the difference as to whether the contract is imposed by the local government or a private council that is attached to the property?
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    The problem is that there's no effective way with (currently constituted) zoning law to 'trade' the externalities of density. You can't compensate your neighbours for shadows or traffic or other impacts in exchange for being able to build larger. So the choice faced by most residents is: 1) Acquiesce to high-density development, and receive zero compensation, or 2) Fight high-density development, and probably get zoning laws imposed at minimal personal cost. You can see why this setup incentivizes people to push hard for "static neighbourhood" zoning law.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      Being near a city core you should EXPECT high density development. Being near a satellite nexus area of such a city, you should expect medium density development around the nexus of civic infrastructure. Japan got how to do urban planning correct.
      - 10y ago

by andkon 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Zoning is what causes Vancouver to have 1/3 the density of Brooklyn. Based on this doc, I believe Vancouver (or "Vancouver A", as distinguished from the greater metro area) has about 200k units. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MV_Housing_Data_Book.pdf http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pla... It appears zoning rules, which prevent Vancouver from building up to Brooklyn levels of density (approx 3x as high), is keeping 400k units off the market. In contrast, unoccupied housing is keeping only 10k units off the market. But I'm sure the rich Chinese people are secretly to blame for this too.

raldi 10y ago
You're focusing on yet another externality of vacant units, that they increase the price of housing. I agree with you that this is minor compared to the way that restrictive zoning drives up the price of housing, but what about all the other negative externalities I mentioned in my comment?
andkon 10y ago
No, the fact that the whole lower mainland has 30% the population of NYC is why Vancouver proper has 1/3 the density of Brooklyn. Increasing density in response to rising populations is great. Increasing density in response to rising investor demand is what we've done already, and it's why we have incredibly lonely, dead neighbourhoods like Coal Harbour.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Zoning for higher density doesn't necessarily solve this problem. Creating more supply results in more units that can potentially be purchased as an investment and left empty.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Housing is a good investment because it's illegal to make more of it. This makes the price of existing stock go up. If you legalized the production of housing that would no longer be true.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  You're arguing that vastly increasing supply will not lower house prices?
  - Tiktaalik 10y ago
    Not at all. Adding more supply is definitely part of the solution. The problem is that adding supply takes time, there are physical limits to the rate at which supply can be added, and the level of demand is unknown. This means it's hard to know when a supply only solution will result in decreased prices and it can take a long time. (Vancouver is not SF, it adds plenty of supply and yet there is still housing shortages and high prices) If you want to fix the problem quickly, policies that increase supply and limit speculative demand will achieve results faster.
    - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
      The problem isn't going to be fixed any quicker than the time it takes for supply to be increased.

snrplfth 10y ago

The logic is that zoning makes for a housing shortage, which means it's profitable simply to hold on to properties without renting them, because the rent would be such a small portion of the investment gains. If supply increased, and moderated the price increases, then people would rent out more because they wouldn't be seeing huge year-on-year home value increases.

andkon 10y ago
That's definitely an alternative response. Here, we've decided that we should instead cut investors' demand of housing, rather than increasing supply proportionately in response to investor demand. Like raldi says above, it's an approach that's a little more sensitive to the fact that we have to live in the hollow feeling city that an investor class can make.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  I understand the response, certainly. But I don't think it's going to make housing (rental or ownership) substantially more available or cheaper in Vancouver - it'll just shuffle a few people around. And rich people don't just evaporate because you limit housing supply; they can arbitrage their way around most of these limits pretty easily.

gravypod 10y ago

Zoning is the cause of high housing prices. This is only an issue because there aren't enough houses to meet the demand. Zoning laws are artificial restriction to prevent deflation of home values. They also prevent people from building what has been dubbed as "tiny homes" that would allow poorer people to provide a substantial improvement to their living conditions. That is where this issue stems from. The inability to a) provide for yourself reasonable living accommodations, and b) the surprisingly huge spike in prices of homes due to the lack of homes that are required. This is what a libertarian believes (disclosure: I'm a libertarian).

linkregister 10y ago
I think in the absence of zoning, the affected neighborhoods would have HOAs by contract limiting building freedom. What's the difference as to whether the contract is imposed by the local government or a private council that is attached to the property?
- snrplfth 10y ago
  The problem is that there's no effective way with (currently constituted) zoning law to 'trade' the externalities of density. You can't compensate your neighbours for shadows or traffic or other impacts in exchange for being able to build larger. So the choice faced by most residents is: 1) Acquiesce to high-density development, and receive zero compensation, or 2) Fight high-density development, and probably get zoning laws imposed at minimal personal cost. You can see why this setup incentivizes people to push hard for "static neighbourhood" zoning law.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Being near a city core you should EXPECT high density development. Being near a satellite nexus area of such a city, you should expect medium density development around the nexus of civic infrastructure. Japan got how to do urban planning correct.
    - 10y ago