I’ve talked a lot about laneway housing here on Architect This City. I’m a big supporter and I wish that Toronto would get on board and formally allow them. It’s been done and it is being done in cities around the world. Just this morning, a friend of mine sent me this NY Times article talking about how Portland has embraced the “granny flat”, which is one of the many names used for this type of housing.
Within the article, you’ll find a nice slideshow of “accessory dwelling units” ranging from 300 and something square feet to 700 square feet. (800 square feet is apparently the maximum in Portland.) But what I found really interesting from the article is how quickly these homes have caught on:
Eli Spevak, a local alternative-housing developer who is among those who lobbied for A.D.U.-friendly policies, said, “The city changed two rules, and all of a sudden it went from 30 a year being built to 200 last year” — an impressive figure, considering the total number of applications approved for single-family houses in 2013 was 800.
This is a hugely impressive figure that shows that these homes are not really a niche product. Laneway homes have become a meaningful chunk of the new home market in Portland. Given that they’re a relatively affordable and sustainable option, I’m not surprised. But I am surprised that more cities aren’t following suit.
The Globe and Mail ran a piece this morning called, The Realtors of Oz: Bidding wars are unnecessarily sleazy.
For anyone who has recently tried to buy a house in Toronto, you’ll know that multiple offer scenarios, also known as “bidding wars”, are a fairly common occurrence. Demand for housing in the city is great and interest rates are low. And so homes are frequently being priced below market to generate a feeding frenzy.
When I read articles like this, I’m reminded of how much frustration I have for the way the real estate market operates today. There’s poor liquidity, there’s a lack of transparency, and there are high transaction costs. I’m a free market kind of a guy and so I’m bothered by how “imperfect” the real estate market remains.
A lot of people in the business like things just the way they are, but I believe that markets function better, for everyone, when they are open and transparent, and all participants have access to information. Thankfully, I do believe that we’re headed towards a world with more transparency, not less. Information wants to be free.
Last year I wrote a post called Province of Toronto, where I briefly talked about the outdated nature of how cities are organized and governed in Canada. I was effectively arguing that, in today’s global economy, our dominate economic unit needs to be the city–not the province.
This isn’t something that gets talked about a lot, but I feel strongly that we should be looking at it. We’re unnecessarily crippling the economic, social, and cultural potential of our cities because we, to put it bluntly, haven’t gotten around to reorganizing our governance structure.
Well, this evening, I happened to stumble upon a great post by The Urbanophile called, Are States an Anachronism? In it, he cites a book by Richard Longworth called Caught in the Middle (that is now on my Clear reading list), which argues that states, as an economic unit in the US, are not only outdated, but hugely detrimental to the economy.
More specifically, he outlines the following concerns (taken directly from The Urbanophile blog):
States do not represent communities of interest.
Arbitrary state lines encourage senseless border wars.
Many state capitals are small, isolated, and cut off from knowledge about the global 21st century economy.
Metro areas are the engines of the modern economy, but the rules for municipal and regional governance are set by states, and often in a manner that is directly contrary to urban interests.
States can’t to much to help, but they can do a lot to hurt.
For a complete explanation of each of the above points, I would encourage you to check out the full blog post, here. As I said before, this isn’t a topic that’s top of mind for most people. But it’s an important one. Our global competitiveness is at stake.