Can new zoning rules fix the housing crisis?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лис 2022
- Ontario is proposing new zoning rules to make it legal to build multi-dwelling units in residential neighbourhoods. But how will that work? And at the end of the day, is it going to make it any easier to afford a place to live? CBC Ottawa’s Omar Dabaghi-Pacheco reports.
»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: bit.ly/1RreYWS
Connect with CBC News Online:
For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage: bit.ly/1Z0m6iX
Find CBC News on Facebook: bit.ly/1WjG36m
Follow CBC News on Twitter: bit.ly/1sA5P9H
For breaking news on Twitter: bit.ly/1WjDyks
Follow CBC News on Instagram: bit.ly/1Z0iE7O
Subscribe to CBC News on Snapchat: bit.ly/3leaWsr
Download the CBC News app for iOS: apple.co/25mpsUz
Download the CBC News app for Android: bit.ly/1XxuozZ
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
For more than 80 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio, CBCNews.ca, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.
Hilarious how he calls it "radical new ways of making change" when 100 years ago this would have been the norm, and single family zoning was the usurper.
Yup, which lead to gentrification today. Lots of old neighborhoods are desirable for being 'walkable' and having a commercial-residential mix
Subsidize infill! Stop subsidizing sprawl!
Could you explain what that is?
@@umerrehman8784 instead of building outward and very spread out housing, build developments closer together or at a higher density to save space and cost.
@@JajaRojas thx! I'understood that already i just didn't understand the terms "infill" and "sprawl". Gotcha
@@JajaRojas no. We need people in more houses not apartments, soon to be pods.
@@xdCrispy-Crisss And the thing about wanting to have most people in apartments means it takes away having home ownership. Puts you at the will of the landlords and whoever else to put you out as they want.
You need to add ground floor retail to the residential mix to cut down on car dependency and increase tax revenue which will help sustain the growing burden on the existing infrastructure. Try looking at the Netherlands, Spain - Italy or Vietnam for instance. Not just talking a store on the corner but stores up and down the block with apartments stacked up on top, not everywhere has to be like that necessarily but considering the housing crisis we've entered half measures seem a bit weak.
i don't know why everyone want's to cut cars off always
who do you think pays for the infrastructure? cyclists?
do you think someone riding their bike down the street is contributing to the upkeep of those roads?
@@blackoutgstar9949 businesses pay for infrastructure.
Property taxes pay for infrastructure.
Vehicles aren't taxed even close to the amount that would be required to pay for all the roads.
A cyclist would pay almost the same to the government, while costing them less in maintenance.
@@kanucks9 gas, tickets and insurance companies pay for the majority of roads.
a cyclist does not pay not even close to the same ok
@@blackoutgstar9949 cyclists also cause less wear and tear on road infrastructure
Not to mention there are plenty of examples places with successful non-car transport, such as the Netherlands.
@@blackoutgstar9949 I would just like to say, NO one is saying that in the future u will never use cars. The ideal is a city where u have convenient options like walking/cycling/public transportation to get ur daily needs or ur daily office travel.
Ofcourse if u like driving that option will always be there.
Even Places like Netherlands which have one of the best mixed use developments & best cycling infrastructure there is very high car ownership. Its just that no one there is forced to own a car for their daily needs. People only use their cars when totally necessary.
Where are all the sidewalks in these neighbourhoods? Do kids have to walk in the streets to get to the parks? Where are the walkable neighbourhood shops, cafes, delis, and bakeries? Where’s the transit to get downtown and other places?
where are you looking? The man is standing on the sidewalks, the people with their kids walking on a sidewalk. whu?? He was only talking about the neighborhood. Maybe the other stuff was talked about in another video.
@@marlak4203 He's standing on the road.
g@@esparda07 He's on both. At :21 he "could" be on the sidewalk or the road. Not precise because of camera angle.
At :45, 1:14 and other multiple points in the video he's on the sidewalk as we see behind him. So its both at various times. But the OP was talking about the video as if there were no sidewalks at all when you see people walking on them, kids included :29, and him standing on them too.
This exaggerated/lying stuff some folks say.
Paved shoulders are NOT sidewalks. This video has NO sidewalks, just asphalt and cement.
Again, where are the sidewalks? Why are people expected to walk on the road with cars?
I think it gives people the wrong impression when a medium-density neighbourhood like the one shown in the video is upzoned to only slightly higher density and then the presenter laments about how the new units are more expensive. Upzoning 1 old single family home to a brand new triplex isn't a huge jump in density and new construction has a premium price. It has to be a significant increase in units-per-lot for better results - such as 1/4-1/2 acre rural SFH lots upzoned to townhomes, or a single family home lot upzoned to a small mixed use apartment building.
Right the long-term intent is more supply makes you less susceptible to stark rise in costs. Of course new construction is worth more than what was there but this too will age and naturally new buildings in 10years will be more expensive than this one at that time. A lot of his language used gave negative connotation without adequately responding to how policy can maintain/add to character and alike (thankfully the architect did a bit).
Zoning is a major problem. We need less sprawl and more medium density neighbourhoods with a mixture of housing.
Problem is the left protest that too when it's actually attempted so we end up building nothing
Absolutely.. my favorites are townhouses and low rise condos (4-5 storey).
As long as it's a decent size 1,500 sq ft 800 sq ft condos won't cut it for families
yes. A "mixture." You don't want to go from one extreme end to another. You'll see this report come up again with the same guy or someone else talking about how it is too much dense housing going on and there needs to be some sfh's. So it would be great if there is some mixedness going on.
I wish companies would spread out more. Make a less intense downtowm.
This is not a crisis, this is a government policy
I agree 100% with you. Bad policy. Practically there is no new housing construction that matches the crisis. For those reasons, even old house, as old as 70 years, sell for a staggeringly hell amount of money. Increase the supply and old house will be fairly dirt cheap.
1:25 - Because it was a massive Ponzi Scheme, Suburbs are cheap to build, and cheap to maintain for the first few decades, so it was basically free money for cities to let developers build huge areas of suburbs, then reap the tax benefits, the problem was that long term the suburbs do not raise enough tax revenues to pay for their own upkeep (Road Maintenance, Trash collection, Police, Fire, etc etc), so the solution was just to keep building more of it to make enough revenues to pay for the upkeep of the older suburbs, then when the greenbelt happened in the 2000s the wheels came off from the Ponzi scheme.
The voters in those suburban municipalities of course don't want development, so the municipalities have been cramming as much development in those few areas where there weren't enough people to care, (See the giant condo towers all clumped in groups), and charging massive development charges on new developments, all to try to keep their books in the green.
Overall Bill 23 is a mixed bag IMO, nuking R1 zoning is a must, but actively reducing development charges and the greenbelt stuff is pure slime.
i like how this cbc video is supposed to represent the masses by being kinda hesitant about all this change and then like all of the comments are extremely supportive of density, its a very cool contrast to see as someone who has been in this space for a while. its nice to see that everyone is starting to agree that density is a good thign
Zoning is a big problem for affordability, I am first time home buyer ,I bought house recently with partnership with friend ,higher price , I have lot of space in my back to build infill house to create income to pay monthly payments and extra place to rent out for needy people, but zoning says no
PARKING LOTS EVERYWHERE, that's the North American zoning, lol
Cities should be dense and pedestrian friendly with a variety of uses within walking distance, not car friendly like in Canada and US!
It's really disgusting when I see 3 sometimes 4
cars parked at the front of a single house!!!
WEF member 15mins city, aint coming here.
@@JO-qi8cx sure buddy, not like old neighborhoods and downtown areas aren’t 15 minutes cities already 😂😂
Why? People can have as many cars as they want
@@TheRandCrewsI can almost guarantee you that the cities in Canada are not built to be 15 minute cities, at least not anytime soon.
@@qdg.productions I never said that the whole city are, I said parts of cities like downtown areas and older neighborhoods do. They got better walkable nearby amenities and transit options than any new development that’s not transit oriented. Also, wow you really replied to almost a year old comment
Need to mix businesses, residential, parks, and different types of units. Solar panel roofs.
and roof top gardens would be good too..
Due to the angle of the sun, solar panel roofs will never be feasible in Canada. Unless we get 2x more efficient solar panels
No. Prices will continue go be driven up so long as this country continues to overpopulate small pockets of the country with immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of new people every year come into the same few areas, they need a place to live.
The biggest problem is that NIMBYs vote to stop affordable housing from being built to keep their house values up.
The possibility of adding a laneway home or garden suite increase the value of a house by about 200K to potential buyers. You have it backwards lol
I don’t blame them. When you work your whole life to get away from what low income housing brings then they come live next door, that’s completely unacceptable. I’ve earned my home and deserve my peaceful existence with my family.
They do not understand that single-family in that area will appreciate a lot as services are built around, and land will become more valuable. The long-term effect will also bring them value if they hold onto the property. The possible loss of value could happen in a very short time as house inventory increases.
@@dcg590He said one unit in the triplex cost $900,000. You're calling that low income housing?
Zoning is cheaper to change than losing skilled builders to USA. After 15 years operating in Ont, I no longer provide these skills service in the region
The costs will remain, just less space
It spent the first 21 years of my life in Montreal. Never heard of "room for rent" until I moved to Toronto. Stayed there a few years and moved back to Montreal. Another 20 years later and I have never rented a room.
Maybe we can stop bringing in 500,000 new people a year when we can't even house the ones already here properly. Not everyone wants to live in condos or share walls with people, or worry about making too much noise to not disturb the unit below them, some want outdoor yard space to enjoy without over a dozen people living per house around them. Canada has so much space, we don't need to live like they do in India if we don't want to.
Suburban sprawl is not it, most housing in residential areas are single family homes. It’s okay to have a choice of living in low, middle, high density areas. Having much land in Canada does not mean we should keep building in those areas being most are forests, farmlands, plains, parks that are detrimental to society. Dense housing doesn’t even have to be condos, could be townhomes, triplexes and duplexes that have still outdoor yards and still be a bit distant and close to your community.
All I got from this was housing WILL STILL NOT BE AFFORDABLE.
This will only increase the value of those houses sitting on larger plots from the investors. Imvesting in high speed public transport and infrastructure in rural areas worked better in Europe. Cant we just copy to European style urbanization please?
Tying your shoes together hinders you ability to move. Untying them will allow you to move normally, it won't make you run faster than that. Amending the zoning rules and eliminating parking requirements is like untying your shoes, letting the free market build what makes economic sense - it helps because that's more supply. But if you really want affordable housing that even the homeless can easily afford, that takes government action - either allowances, vouchers, subsidizing developers and landlords, or building homes directly.
How about encouraging companies (IE jobs) to not cluster in one small area, thereby forcing people to live closer to their jobs.
Well done segment!
What are those radical new ways, if upzoning to triplex is still not enough?
See the recommendations from the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force report. One of them is "as of right" residential housing of up to four storeys on a single residential lot.
@@Richard_Stroker If you happen to have a 200 ft deep lot , Dougie has just almost doubled your net worth with a stroke of the pen. If you are in the right municipality.
Housing affordability is about finance, not zoning. Only rent seeking developers and their trickle down cheerleaders think this. There is one point of zoning you haven’t touched on here: mandated “Free” Parking.
But as long as housing is treated as an investment vehicle this effort to reduce zoning restrictions will do very little to address affordability if anything.
Remember when Mike Harris said getting rid of Rent Controls would solve affordability? Clearly not because you’re using the same talking points.
Parking minimums right?
Yes, this will make housing cheaper. More supply and same demand will give us lower prices. That’s basic economics
Single family zoning is a major issue and it is only been addressed now. You can't establish a true "walkable city" with single family zoning due to the lack of density. You will never have enough residents to create the type of "green" environment that will allow people to give up their cars and adopt public transits. The problem is existing homeowners have "not in my backyard" mentality. It's so hypocritical to see many of the owners of the single family homes complain about the proposed city boundary expansion plan in Hamilton. You walked to single family neighbourhoods of Dundas, Ancaster and Hamilton west (McMaster area), you would see signs to oppose the expansion plan last year during the council debate. And the fact that the cities are crying about the lack of future funding due to the slash of development fees is even laughable. Most municipalities in Ontario would have more than enough tax dollars if we would get rid of the Catholic school system. Just picture when all of property tax dollars go towards one public system instead of having the option to divert your tax dollars to a religious school. Until we fix and streamline cost of education in this province, there won't be enough money to fix the roads/infrastructures and fund sufficient social programs. What's worst is new property owners and developers have to pay hefty "developmental fees" to help cover the shortfall of city budgets. It's ridiculous. Next time just look at the breakdown of your property tax dollars. See how much of your money goes to schools in your local communities. Don't think that having two school systems is not related to high cost of living in Canada---it's all inter-related.
The legacy of British colonialism lives on.
The private sector has no interest to solve any crisis other than how to cash in and cash out. For profit housing and affordable housing are not remotely compatible.
And rightfully so like any self-respecting business.
@@shauncameron8390AMEN
the mentality changed I can remember local hardware stores carried a bit of every thing and a local butcher then came big box stores like Walmart killed most stuff around it now thats even dying as I know people who dont even go to the store except for grocery's. They use amazon for every thing. As to housing if you pay for a one home community you dont want quad plex's. If your going to do it they should be on the fringe of these areas to allow people to keep housing values to reduce hostility to the idea
Yes i agree too. Having all that kind of living space all mixed in is a mess so yes have both but have them mostly separate. That is good.
it will only destroy beautiful neighborhoods and tree canopies we have spent a hundred years creating. The Ontario Gov't has not thought this through on the impact it will create including financial.
Neighborhood will only get beautiful with people not with scattered houses, couple of tree canopies disturbed is better than cutting forest to build new neighborhoods
The ONLY thing that is going to fix housing is to make it a human right instead of a profit center.
That kills off a huge market in Canada which is not worth it. There could be other alternatives though.
Hey CBC
Policy makers have no sense of wisdom when it comes why housing is expensive. Housing is so expense because there is practically no new constructions. For this reason even houses as old as 70 years sell for an atronomical prices. It is so shameful! The government should organize people, provided loan and form a team of builders to do the job. Only then the private sectors start to do responsible things.
when i was 20 in 2002 i purchased an apartment building 24 units. i know many loop holes if anyone wants to know
Im moving out of Canada in 5 months because of housing…
Old office buildings can be renovated into apartments.
Municipalities have had years to do this and failed. Apparently they need the stick and not the carrot. Btw, everything you mentioned (roads, sewers, electric systems) are continuous costs that should be covered by continuous revenue (property tax). Development fees are one-time costs to cover one-time issues (rail lines, sewer upgrading) not routine maitenance. Municipalities have been abusing these so subsidize suburban sprawl that is financially unsustainable as well as environmentally.
Talking about housing crisis while accepting half a million of new immigrants each year, the government policies are just irresponsible.
What i don't understand is that why the governement have no regulations for people buying multiple homes and then renting those homes out. Corporates are buying hundreds of homes. Even individuals owning 3 to 4 homes for airbnb purpose. Otherwise, no matter how many greenbelts they open or how many zonning laws they amend. Once these homes are bought by few, the general public will always suffer with either high prices of purchase oe rent.
Because this is America as it should be. Regulation =communism.
500k lot >>2.7m lot over 2 years. Nice!
build network of commuter rail systems taking people out of the city to neighborhoods.
While supply is a problem. Boomers living longer still need to live somewhere along with our new labour force (and why we need immigration) they need houses but the proposed zoning changes will not affect affordability. There won’t be enough people able to earn a down payment or qualify for a mortgage. Rental gouging will become prevalent. It will take 10-20 years before increased supply affects the housing prices. And all the usage on infrastructure like roads, sewage, water, garbage. Who will pay for those increases in services ? Tax increases ?? We built sprawl and now we’re paying the piper.The younger generations will be screwed from living like their grand parents/parents
Why just rezone ? Everything will have to rebuild from pipes, sewers to account for higher density anyway. Is there a shortage of land to build on (excluding agricultural, wetlands etc)
Y not sprawl outward n manage immigration based on how much cities can manage.
Yea sprawl has totally worked in in places like Dallas and Houston
No, it won’t translate to affordability. It is intended so that they can fleece more people. The new comers are the product. Housing is a way to extract surplus values from people. It will never be affordable. If it is, they cannot exploit you.
Also no condo are built that are livable. My wife is from the middle East 1000+ Sqft apartments with good parking and storage are common there for the middle class. Here we get a small box.
Likely have to start regulating size. Maybe tax around speculation too.
Also, allowing mixed use and better transit. I live in Toronto and public transit is crap.
Zoning is a tool like any other. Unfortunately there are other factors which impact this that no one is talking about. Such as building codes, permits, inspection, infrastructure capacity (roads, sewers, hydro)...let alone construction materials, skilled trades, and capacity. We’ve already reached limits with material shortages, gouging from suppliers, which cause radical spikes in cost. Plus when you try to speed things up without control, environmental and consumer protection agencies can’t perform their function. Flood protection, Tarion, and the like will lose their teeth; allowing rampant abuse. I certainly would hate to see what these houses and neighborhoods look like in 10-20 years, I wouldn’t want to live there. Shoddy work handed off for future generations of owners to fix.
Boa tarde. Canadá?
There are tons of unused farm lands in each suburbs around big cities that have been idle for years! Those lands could not be used as farming due to weather or soil conditions, but we could build million of homes on them and create tons of jobs!
Reduce the costs for rezoning and make taxes cut for building new homes for first time home buyers! Homes are for living rather than flipping!
It should not be a difficult job for federal government to do this kind of things for Canadians! Remove local government involvement in this matters!!
That’s true rezoning lands for higher density saves useful farmlands and other environmental areas from sprawl. Ontario is touching the greenbelt instead of upzoning areas in the GTA for more people moving in, too slow
Building a livable city is the challenge. Population too dense with insufficient green space and crime goes up, too much urban sprawl and essential services like mass transit, hospitals, schools, and utilities becomes inefficient. The biggest opposition to zoning change and a livable city are existing home owners. Housing crises are caused by the guy in the mirror.
Why does everyone associate density with crime? I feel like it’s some US stereotype that people propagate because it’s not like that worldwide (I could be wrong but it seems a bit off).
Stock market going down the drain, isn't it?
Really sad about the parks.
It's a nightmare plan ..make small boxes then tell people that's a family home, then add in traffic night mare ,the only winner is governments
Yep I live in one of these boxes right now AKA a townhouse and the noise from the kids next door completely ruins the experience. Wham bam slammin' on the walls all day, I can assure you this is not what people want.
all of Europe is testament to how wrong you are.
@@TheAircool1
But North America is not Europe.
You will look like Los Angeles :P
#notjustbikes they need you
yes.yes.yes. I was gonna find a link to his vlog about exactly this zoning R1 debacle of the N-America's.
Love this! Should of been done 30 years ago. It's the first baby step, not the entire solution.
Big backyard? There is no backyard on any of the houses I can see. Come to rural Quebec if you want to see big back yards....
ZONING RULES HAVE TO BE ABOLISHED!
Good points. Real problem the red tape, on green way to develop. This is slowing supply, while demand is very high. Prices way up 🤭
Single family units is what's killing the middle the housing market. The idea of everyone having a big house and a big yard was not the norm for the past 200 years. Building duplexes is not radical and passing legislation that allows people to build a house without the interference of overbearing neighbors is a good thing. Allowing the market to freely build multifamily housing will decrease rents.
Doug Fords bill 23 is the future if you want to live in a slum. Toronto will become a Bangkok, corrugated metal roofs in backyards with a shanty shack building in backyards. How much $$$$$ is Doug Ford making from his developer friends???? Is he laundering this cash windfall at the casino's??? Auditor general should stay in her lane and stop messing with Doug Fords cash out
Fix the landlord tenant board. It’s many loopholes and bias enables professional tenants to strain the system.
I believe location, and type of home are both applicable when it comes to affordability in Canada.
1. Overpopulation
2. lack of homes
3. high cost of living
I think my above list contributes to the housing crisis in Canada.
I agree that a lack of housing supply and high cost of living contribute to the housing crisis. However, I disagree that overpopulation is one of the reasons. Population density in major cities in Canada is nothing compared to other cities in the world like New York or Paris.
50% of Canada's population lives in the Quebec - Windsor corridor. We're definitely NOT overpopulated.
I'd add housing being bought as assets and for renting out.
1. Canada is anything but overpopulated.
I don't know the answer, but I wonder if our current problem wouldn't be as bad if multigenerational homes were more normalized in thus country. Definitely not the only piece of the pie, though.
It's time to update zoning and building standards, the current rules are outdated to post war suburbia that's unsustainable to neighborhoods and taxpayers. It's time to bring back housing pre 1950s as it use to be.
You mean stick the projects near peaceful neighborhoods where people have earned it? Nope. They will ruin those neighborhoods too. Seen it over and over. Not fair to those of us who have worked so hard to choose where we want to build our homes away from all of it to be forced back into it. Not to mention the ridiculous taxes we pay to have peace.
@@dcg590 You cannot live in a stasis chamber
You need space if you want to go green. Increasing density geometrically increases an already massive carbon footprint. So, you can save the environment (green) by adding space, or you can have increased housing density and expand the carbon footprint (do you have any idea how much electricity an elevator pulls?). Choose.
Also, ask the neighbours (read: voters) if they want their property values tanked by a new high-density build? They bought a house zoned single-family residential. I think not.
Whats with all the NOISE and music on this
Hi CBC can you tell the young Gen Z and Millennials that you hire that are now making your content...
that this is important information and not a music video.
THE MUSIC IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MESSAGE.
Can you hire university graduates. They are thought this media theory classes.
He never mentioned that this is Ontario.
In each province its different as Housing is a provincial responsibility and each have their own laws on most things not just housing
We don't need affordable homes, we need to make buying a home affordable. It's coming.
All zoning does is move kids to another school or catchment area, not a smart idea.
It reduces sprawl, driving distances and CO2 emissions.
Is his neighbourhood getting browner by the day?