I watched a bit of the English leadership debate the other night. Eventually I got frustrated and went to bed, but I understand that housing affordability and overall affordability were important topics.
What is clear, to anyone who cares to look, is that in most big cities we are not building enough new housing. According to the above Economist article (linked in the above tweet), the "rich world" has seen new housing production drop by about 50% (relative to population) since the 1960s.
There are many reasons for this. But part of the problem is bureaucracy. Things move exceedingly slow. And another part of the problem is community opposition. Urban sprawl can be easier to swallow because there's an out-of-sight-out-of-mind phenomenon at work. Stuff may be happening, but it's not happening in my backyard.
But now that so much of what we do is centered around intensifying existing neighborhoods, we are faced with a battle between the incumbents (existing residents) and the future residents of a community that don't have nearly as much say -- if any at all.
I watched a bit of the English leadership debate the other night. Eventually I got frustrated and went to bed, but I understand that housing affordability and overall affordability were important topics.
What is clear, to anyone who cares to look, is that in most big cities we are not building enough new housing. According to the above Economist article (linked in the above tweet), the "rich world" has seen new housing production drop by about 50% (relative to population) since the 1960s.
There are many reasons for this. But part of the problem is bureaucracy. Things move exceedingly slow. And another part of the problem is community opposition. Urban sprawl can be easier to swallow because there's an out-of-sight-out-of-mind phenomenon at work. Stuff may be happening, but it's not happening in my backyard.
But now that so much of what we do is centered around intensifying existing neighborhoods, we are faced with a battle between the incumbents (existing residents) and the future residents of a community that don't have nearly as much say -- if any at all.
What I like about the Economist article is their line of thinking for how to address this dynamic, which, at the end of the day, is rooted in what I will call expected selfishness.
The approach is around aligning incentives. How could we better structure the delivery of new housing so that more stakeholders stand to directly benefit? Because as we have seen with laneway housing here in Toronto, homeowners will gladly build in their backyard when they stand to benefit directly.
This recent article by Bloomberg CityLab, about "how California set off a backyard apartment boom," has some interesting stats about the extent in which accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are quickly being adopted and delivered across the state.
For one, a majority (87%) of jurisdictions have enacted at least one ordinance related to ADUs, though many have several. These policies might include everything from by-right zoning to some form of financial assistance if you build. Here is a graph showing the cities and counties that have created ADU ordinances since 2013:
All of this has translated into housing supply. In 2019, California homeowners brought over 12,000 accessory dwelling units to the market (based on permits issued). Though a relatively small quantity based on the state's overall housing deficit, this number is surely growing thanks to policies and programs, like this one here, that are working to remove the barriers to building.
What I like about the Economist article is their line of thinking for how to address this dynamic, which, at the end of the day, is rooted in what I will call expected selfishness.
The approach is around aligning incentives. How could we better structure the delivery of new housing so that more stakeholders stand to directly benefit? Because as we have seen with laneway housing here in Toronto, homeowners will gladly build in their backyard when they stand to benefit directly.
This recent article by Bloomberg CityLab, about "how California set off a backyard apartment boom," has some interesting stats about the extent in which accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are quickly being adopted and delivered across the state.
For one, a majority (87%) of jurisdictions have enacted at least one ordinance related to ADUs, though many have several. These policies might include everything from by-right zoning to some form of financial assistance if you build. Here is a graph showing the cities and counties that have created ADU ordinances since 2013:
All of this has translated into housing supply. In 2019, California homeowners brought over 12,000 accessory dwelling units to the market (based on permits issued). Though a relatively small quantity based on the state's overall housing deficit, this number is surely growing thanks to policies and programs, like this one here, that are working to remove the barriers to building.
Here are a few interesting stats from a brief report that New York City published this month about their supply of new housing units:
From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020, New York City delivered 205,994 net new housing units across the five boroughs.
This total includes 202,956 units from new construction and 29,161 units from the alteration/conversion of existing buildings. However, it also factors units that were lost as a result of demolition (-17,400) or alteration (-8,723).
Brooklyn saw the most supply, followed by Manhattan. The four highest-growth Community Districts were responsible for 1/3 of all new housing additions. These CDs are all formerly non-residential areas that were rezoned to allow living.
Manhattan saw the greatest loss in housing units as a result of alterations (people combining units). This was most prevalent in wealthy neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Greenwich Village.
What is interesting about this last point is that it shows you that cities are far from static. New York City lost 26,123 housing units during the above time period, with 8,723 units being lost to alterations and people combining units.
The orange areas on the above map are neighborhoods which actually became less dense over the last decade. And of course, this phenomenon is not unique to New York City. We are seeing the same thing play out in some/many neighborhoods in Toronto.
What this mean is that the role of new development is really twofold. It allows a city to grow (i.e. house new New Yorkers), but it also replaces lost housing and relieves some of the pressures on the existing housing stock. I don't think many people appreciate this dynamic -- or perhaps they don't care.
For a copy of the full report (it's only two pages), click here.
Here are a few interesting stats from a brief report that New York City published this month about their supply of new housing units:
From January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2020, New York City delivered 205,994 net new housing units across the five boroughs.
This total includes 202,956 units from new construction and 29,161 units from the alteration/conversion of existing buildings. However, it also factors units that were lost as a result of demolition (-17,400) or alteration (-8,723).
Brooklyn saw the most supply, followed by Manhattan. The four highest-growth Community Districts were responsible for 1/3 of all new housing additions. These CDs are all formerly non-residential areas that were rezoned to allow living.
Manhattan saw the greatest loss in housing units as a result of alterations (people combining units). This was most prevalent in wealthy neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Greenwich Village.
What is interesting about this last point is that it shows you that cities are far from static. New York City lost 26,123 housing units during the above time period, with 8,723 units being lost to alterations and people combining units.
The orange areas on the above map are neighborhoods which actually became less dense over the last decade. And of course, this phenomenon is not unique to New York City. We are seeing the same thing play out in some/many neighborhoods in Toronto.
What this mean is that the role of new development is really twofold. It allows a city to grow (i.e. house new New Yorkers), but it also replaces lost housing and relieves some of the pressures on the existing housing stock. I don't think many people appreciate this dynamic -- or perhaps they don't care.
For a copy of the full report (it's only two pages), click here.
