4 ms·

Zoning laws and building heights restrictions and other regulations are to blame. Basically, it's hard to provide enough inventory when doing so in a way that w

Zoning laws and building heights restrictions and other regulations are to blame. Basically, it's hard to provide enough inventory when doing so in a way that would help (build more buildings and higher ones that can receive more people) is illegal. Why do such regulations exist? Several reasons: * nepotism, current owners want to keep the inventory low so the price of their property and demand remain high * nepotism, because owners are afraid tall building will make their city less appealing and lower the price of their property. * silly zoning laws, because many believe central planning is actually a good thing despite the ridiculous amount of evidence that it doesn't work. * simple inertia, bad laws and regulations are created all the time but almost never repealed. I'm probably missing a few other reasons I'm sure others will point them out. Also something worth saying, owners love to say that adding taller buildings and more buildings and people would kill the spirit of the city. But preventing new buildings has a effect of super high prices that makes it impossible to live in the city, in the end only billionaires can buy homes as investment and don't even live there while the few other building are rented to a few lucky high salary people which creates tension with the rest of the population. So you get a city full of empty houses, super rich people, high salary folks and regular people who are getting kicked out. Real people start living outside the city and its spirit is gone anyway.

jonstewart 10y ago
"Nepotism" is favoritism shown to family relatives. I think the word you're looking for "NIBMYism".
- ikeyany 10y ago
  NIMBYism itself is just a friendlier way of saying "selfish, greedy, and exclusionary".
  - jonstewart 10y ago
    I'm not sure it's friendlier... I think it's plenty pejorative. Regardless, it's not the same thing as nepotism.
robk 10y ago
Some planning seems to work. Portland is one of the most planned cities with its border definition yet it remains very livable. Although I suppose the lack of jobs means pressure is reduced.
ggcdn 10y ago
Some zoning rules could be beneficial. For instance, if cities started mandating 15% of new apartments had to be rentals, or 40% have to be 3 bedrooms, etc. Right now, much of the new housing stock coming online isn't really useful for anyone but single wealthy individuals or speculative investors. And so, without zoning restrictions, we are ending up with cities full of $400,000 empty 1-bedroom condos.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  we have cities full of $400k empty 1br condos because of zoning regulations on minimum sizes of apartments. "some zoning rules" is a veeery slippery slope.
  - ggcdn 10y ago
    I don't follow your logic here. Smaller condos obviously cost less in absolute dollars, but they aren't viable options for families. So we are still left at a housing inventory that is great for speculative investors and individuals, and not much else.
- aianus 10y ago
  > if cities started mandating 15% of new apartments had to be rentals Why is it so desirable for your landlord to be a business instead of a private individual who bought a condo? What problem does this solve? > 40% have to be 3 bedrooms What is this supposed to do? Yuppy roommates are still going to outbid working-class mom and dad every time. See San Francisco.
  - ggcdn 10y ago
    >What problem does this solve? It prevents them from being bought by speculative investors and taken off the market. An alternative solution to the same problem is an empty-home tax, which is being rolled out in Vancouver. > What is this supposed to do? Its pretty obvious isn't it? It increases the supply of viable housing options for families. I'm not trying to say this is the silver bullet - Its just some ideas. My honest opinion is that Canadian housing should only be able to be owned by Canadian citizens, but that ship sailed long ago.
mafribe 10y ago
current owners want to keep the inventory low [...] owners are afraid tall building I'm slightly sceptical of this argument, because every individual new building isn't enough to impact the market. In big cities the value of a low-rise house is almost entirely the value of the land on which it sits, and the owners would vastly increase their wealth if the zoning laws were changed so as to allow high-rise construction. Source of information: I own a low-rise house in the center of one of the world's biggest and most expensive cities, and I've tried hard to get building permission for adding a single floor, but that was denied on ground of making my building "out of character" with the neighbouring building. I suspect that re-zoning is simply not a vote-winner (like e.g. adding a new runway to an airport), so politicians from all sides shy away from it.
ryanbrunner 10y ago
Eh, if anything Toronto works against this theory. Skyscraper development has been a constant part of Toronto for the last ~ 15 years, to the point that the skyline is unrecognizable from what it looked like in 2000. More skyscrapers are built in Toronto than anywhere else in North America.

jonstewart 10y ago

"Nepotism" is favoritism shown to family relatives. I think the word you're looking for "NIBMYism".

ikeyany 10y ago
NIMBYism itself is just a friendlier way of saying "selfish, greedy, and exclusionary".
- jonstewart 10y ago
  I'm not sure it's friendlier... I think it's plenty pejorative. Regardless, it's not the same thing as nepotism.

robk 10y ago

Some planning seems to work. Portland is one of the most planned cities with its border definition yet it remains very livable. Although I suppose the lack of jobs means pressure is reduced.

ggcdn 10y ago

Some zoning rules could be beneficial. For instance, if cities started mandating 15% of new apartments had to be rentals, or 40% have to be 3 bedrooms, etc. Right now, much of the new housing stock coming online isn't really useful for anyone but single wealthy individuals or speculative investors. And so, without zoning restrictions, we are ending up with cities full of $400,000 empty 1-bedroom condos.

wonder_er 10y ago
we have cities full of $400k empty 1br condos because of zoning regulations on minimum sizes of apartments. "some zoning rules" is a veeery slippery slope.
- ggcdn 10y ago
  I don't follow your logic here. Smaller condos obviously cost less in absolute dollars, but they aren't viable options for families. So we are still left at a housing inventory that is great for speculative investors and individuals, and not much else.
aianus 10y ago
> if cities started mandating 15% of new apartments had to be rentals Why is it so desirable for your landlord to be a business instead of a private individual who bought a condo? What problem does this solve? > 40% have to be 3 bedrooms What is this supposed to do? Yuppy roommates are still going to outbid working-class mom and dad every time. See San Francisco.
- ggcdn 10y ago
  >What problem does this solve? It prevents them from being bought by speculative investors and taken off the market. An alternative solution to the same problem is an empty-home tax, which is being rolled out in Vancouver. > What is this supposed to do? Its pretty obvious isn't it? It increases the supply of viable housing options for families. I'm not trying to say this is the silver bullet - Its just some ideas. My honest opinion is that Canadian housing should only be able to be owned by Canadian citizens, but that ship sailed long ago.

mafribe 10y ago

current owners want to keep the inventory low [...] owners are afraid tall building I'm slightly sceptical of this argument, because every individual new building isn't enough to impact the market. In big cities the value of a low-rise house is almost entirely the value of the land on which it sits, and the owners would vastly increase their wealth if the zoning laws were changed so as to allow high-rise construction. Source of information: I own a low-rise house in the center of one of the world's biggest and most expensive cities, and I've tried hard to get building permission for adding a single floor, but that was denied on ground of making my building "out of character" with the neighbouring building. I suspect that re-zoning is simply not a vote-winner (like e.g. adding a new runway to an airport), so politicians from all sides shy away from it.

ryanbrunner 10y ago

Eh, if anything Toronto works against this theory. Skyscraper development has been a constant part of Toronto for the last ~ 15 years, to the point that the skyline is unrecognizable from what it looked like in 2000. More skyscrapers are built in Toronto than anywhere else in North America.