Unfortunately the author and some of the folks quoted in that article seem to confuse the popularity and desirability of urban cores with the idea that changes in the level of supply won't help affordability. For example: It's very likely that without previous changes made in Vancouver housing prices would be *even worse* than they are now.
There's a long list in the article to the contrary.
quite an assumption on your part. “very likely” ? “even worse” ? Based on what ? Long list contrary to what ? No one doubts the desirability of a vibrant urban core. I grew up in Montreal.
while we all agree that a housing availability and affordability is a very important issue, rezoning will NOT improve affordability. Densification and rezoning in a thoughtful manner is crucial. Blanket rezoning is not thoughtful. New 6 plexes in Bowness are going for $800,000.
While housing economics is complex, there is a continually growing body of evidence - supported by the basic economics of supply and demand - that adding supply can help affordability. There is *also* strong evidence that even minor changes to the zoning (as Rezoning for Housing is proposing) can add good amounts of supply.
Unfortunately, using anecdotal and one-off examples from one community *before* zoning happens doesn't quite balance with the larger more systematic data showing that it can help affordability.
There is also evidence available that shows that blanket rezoning does NOT improve affordability. Supply for whom ? I can provide that data if you wish. What I really object to is the characterization of those against blanket rezoning as people who are selfish , “old white guys” and the NIMBYism argument. I know of no one who doesn’t believe that this is a very serious, critical
issue. Our own daughter is a successful software engineer and her husband is a research chemist in Vancouver. It is extremely discouraging for them . As it is for us. This example in Bowness is not a one-off example. Merely one example. The neighbourhood is outraged. There are many serious concerns about infrastructure, waste disposal, traffic and even parking have been dismissed as NIMBYism. Gross generalizations do nothing to solve the problem together. It simply ends up as an “us against them”. situation. The last thing that we need these days. Thanks for your response.
Wendell Cox is unlikely to be “ confused”, given his credentials.
Here’s a different take…
https://www.newgeography.com/content/007221-higher-urban-densities-associated-with-worst-housing-affordability
Hi Duncan,
Unfortunately the author and some of the folks quoted in that article seem to confuse the popularity and desirability of urban cores with the idea that changes in the level of supply won't help affordability. For example: It's very likely that without previous changes made in Vancouver housing prices would be *even worse* than they are now.
There's a long list in the article to the contrary.
quite an assumption on your part. “very likely” ? “even worse” ? Based on what ? Long list contrary to what ? No one doubts the desirability of a vibrant urban core. I grew up in Montreal.
while we all agree that a housing availability and affordability is a very important issue, rezoning will NOT improve affordability. Densification and rezoning in a thoughtful manner is crucial. Blanket rezoning is not thoughtful. New 6 plexes in Bowness are going for $800,000.
Hi Duncan, thanks for you response.
While housing economics is complex, there is a continually growing body of evidence - supported by the basic economics of supply and demand - that adding supply can help affordability. There is *also* strong evidence that even minor changes to the zoning (as Rezoning for Housing is proposing) can add good amounts of supply.
Unfortunately, using anecdotal and one-off examples from one community *before* zoning happens doesn't quite balance with the larger more systematic data showing that it can help affordability.
There is also evidence available that shows that blanket rezoning does NOT improve affordability. Supply for whom ? I can provide that data if you wish. What I really object to is the characterization of those against blanket rezoning as people who are selfish , “old white guys” and the NIMBYism argument. I know of no one who doesn’t believe that this is a very serious, critical
issue. Our own daughter is a successful software engineer and her husband is a research chemist in Vancouver. It is extremely discouraging for them . As it is for us. This example in Bowness is not a one-off example. Merely one example. The neighbourhood is outraged. There are many serious concerns about infrastructure, waste disposal, traffic and even parking have been dismissed as NIMBYism. Gross generalizations do nothing to solve the problem together. It simply ends up as an “us against them”. situation. The last thing that we need these days. Thanks for your response.