Earlier this month, Vancouver City Council approved a plan that will have staff developing a "transport pricing" strategy for the city's core. (Transport pricing is just another term for road pricing or congestion pricing.) The plan is for staff to go away and work on this and then report back to Council with a pricing strategy sometime in 2022. At that point Council will look to approve the plan and it will all get implemented by 2025. Or at least that's the plan. I remain somewhat skeptical because Vancouver certainly isn't the first Canadian city to look at pricing its roads and congestion. Toronto has tried and failed. And so if Vancouver does end up doing this, they'll likely be the first city in the country.
So why are they doing this, or least trying to do this? Well, if you're a regular reader of this blog you'll know that I've been a supporter of road pricing for many years. Lots of old posts over here. But in the case of Vancouver, their stated goals are really as follows: 1) They want to reduce congestion and encourage people to use other forms of mobility; 2) they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 3) they want another revenue stream that can be used to fund things like transit and active transport. Put differently, it's about pricing/taxing the things that we want less of and then using that money to pay for the things we want more of.
Earlier this month, Vancouver City Council approved a plan that will have staff developing a "transport pricing" strategy for the city's core. (Transport pricing is just another term for road pricing or congestion pricing.) The plan is for staff to go away and work on this and then report back to Council with a pricing strategy sometime in 2022. At that point Council will look to approve the plan and it will all get implemented by 2025. Or at least that's the plan. I remain somewhat skeptical because Vancouver certainly isn't the first Canadian city to look at pricing its roads and congestion. Toronto has tried and failed. And so if Vancouver does end up doing this, they'll likely be the first city in the country.
So why are they doing this, or least trying to do this? Well, if you're a regular reader of this blog you'll know that I've been a supporter of road pricing for many years. Lots of old posts over here. But in the case of Vancouver, their stated goals are really as follows: 1) They want to reduce congestion and encourage people to use other forms of mobility; 2) they want to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 3) they want another revenue stream that can be used to fund things like transit and active transport. Put differently, it's about pricing/taxing the things that we want less of and then using that money to pay for the things we want more of.
Some of you might be wondering whether this is a good idea at a time when the centralizing pull of cities is being called into question. But I think it's important to keep in mind that Vancouver thinks it needs at least five years to implement its transport pricing. We'll be living through the roaring twenties by then. I am also a firm believer that cities are going to snap back significantly faster than most people think.
Whenever you see a best-of-anything ranking, you should probably ask yourself what the hell "best" even means. In this case, Resonance Consultancy is ranking the world's cities based on six alliterative categories: place, people, programming, product, prosperity, and promotion.
Some of these metrics are qualitative, but many are, in fact, quantitative. Number of COVID-19 infections in 2020; number of direct destinations served by the city's airports; number of foreign-born residents; number of top-rated restaurants (TripAdvisor); most Instagram check-ins, and so on.
The result is this list of the world's best cities:
London
New York
Paris
Moscow
Tokyo
Dubai
Singapore
Barcelona
Los Angeles
Madrid
Rome
Chicago
Toronto
San Francisco
Abu Dhabi
I arbitrarily chose the top 15 cities in order to make sure that Toronto was included in this ranking. If you'd like to download a full copy of the 2021 World's Best Cities report, you can do that over here. I recommend you check out their performance criteria.
Toronto, for example, performs very well when it comes to "people." That's fairly consistent across most of these rankings. But it didn't fare so well when it comes to "place." That category includes things like the average number of sunny days and the number of high quality sights & landmarks.
Some of you might be wondering whether this is a good idea at a time when the centralizing pull of cities is being called into question. But I think it's important to keep in mind that Vancouver thinks it needs at least five years to implement its transport pricing. We'll be living through the roaring twenties by then. I am also a firm believer that cities are going to snap back significantly faster than most people think.
Whenever you see a best-of-anything ranking, you should probably ask yourself what the hell "best" even means. In this case, Resonance Consultancy is ranking the world's cities based on six alliterative categories: place, people, programming, product, prosperity, and promotion.
Some of these metrics are qualitative, but many are, in fact, quantitative. Number of COVID-19 infections in 2020; number of direct destinations served by the city's airports; number of foreign-born residents; number of top-rated restaurants (TripAdvisor); most Instagram check-ins, and so on.
The result is this list of the world's best cities:
London
New York
Paris
Moscow
Tokyo
Dubai
Singapore
Barcelona
Los Angeles
Madrid
Rome
Chicago
Toronto
San Francisco
Abu Dhabi
I arbitrarily chose the top 15 cities in order to make sure that Toronto was included in this ranking. If you'd like to download a full copy of the 2021 World's Best Cities report, you can do that over here. I recommend you check out their performance criteria.
Toronto, for example, performs very well when it comes to "people." That's fairly consistent across most of these rankings. But it didn't fare so well when it comes to "place." That category includes things like the average number of sunny days and the number of high quality sights & landmarks.
That is the argument that Joshua Gordon, who is an assistant professor in the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy, recently made in this opinion piece in the Globe and Mail. In his view, there's no evidence to suggest that housing supply can actually help housing affordability. It's just something that developers throw around to "stymie action on the demand-side" and to help with their rezoning efforts. Really, the housing problem is due to intense demand from foreign buyers, investors, and from "high rental demand."
Now, as many of you know, I am a developer, and not a professor. So you can take this post however you would like. But I do have a few thoughts.
One, I think it's an oversimplification to argue that there have been no regulatory changes over the last decade that have meaningfully and negatively impacted the supply of new housing. To give you one example, this fall, development levies in Toronto will complete a phase-in that has seen them double over the last couple of years. Almost a quarter of the price of a new residential condominium now goes to pay government fees and taxes. This has an impact on supply, even if the "regulatory environment" hasn't necessarily changed.
Two, I don't buy the argument that, "surrounding cities have also seen rapid price appreciation and it's easier to build there, so housing supply mustn't be the problem." Building outside of cities like Toronto and Vancouver isn't necessarily easier. In fact, in some cases it can be more difficult if they're not accustomed to more progressive urban infill-type developments.
Three, it's important to keep in mind that we have a financing structure in place that biases the types of homes (specifically residential condominiums) that get built. This approach is designed to mitigate financial risk, but it also means that investors serve an important function in the delivery of new housing. I'm not saying that the system is perfect; but I am saying that things are maybe not as simple as they may seem.
Four, just because there are cities with lots of single-detached homes and relatively affordable housing, I don't think we can safely assume that single-family land use policies have no impact on supply and pricing in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. In fact, I would argue the opposite. This probably goes to show you the importance of an elastic housing supply. Indeed, some of the most affordable housing markets are dominated by low-rise houses precisely because it is a typology that is quicker and cheaper to build than most urban infill housing.
Finally, I'm not sure why anyone would consider high rental demand and a strong labor market to be symptomatic of a problem. Isn't that what you usually want out of cities? You want there to be an abundance of good jobs that pay people money so that they can, you know, have a life and consume things like housing. But maybe that's just the way that I look at things. I am a developer after all.
That is the argument that Joshua Gordon, who is an assistant professor in the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy, recently made in this opinion piece in the Globe and Mail. In his view, there's no evidence to suggest that housing supply can actually help housing affordability. It's just something that developers throw around to "stymie action on the demand-side" and to help with their rezoning efforts. Really, the housing problem is due to intense demand from foreign buyers, investors, and from "high rental demand."
Now, as many of you know, I am a developer, and not a professor. So you can take this post however you would like. But I do have a few thoughts.
One, I think it's an oversimplification to argue that there have been no regulatory changes over the last decade that have meaningfully and negatively impacted the supply of new housing. To give you one example, this fall, development levies in Toronto will complete a phase-in that has seen them double over the last couple of years. Almost a quarter of the price of a new residential condominium now goes to pay government fees and taxes. This has an impact on supply, even if the "regulatory environment" hasn't necessarily changed.
Two, I don't buy the argument that, "surrounding cities have also seen rapid price appreciation and it's easier to build there, so housing supply mustn't be the problem." Building outside of cities like Toronto and Vancouver isn't necessarily easier. In fact, in some cases it can be more difficult if they're not accustomed to more progressive urban infill-type developments.
Three, it's important to keep in mind that we have a financing structure in place that biases the types of homes (specifically residential condominiums) that get built. This approach is designed to mitigate financial risk, but it also means that investors serve an important function in the delivery of new housing. I'm not saying that the system is perfect; but I am saying that things are maybe not as simple as they may seem.
Four, just because there are cities with lots of single-detached homes and relatively affordable housing, I don't think we can safely assume that single-family land use policies have no impact on supply and pricing in cities like Toronto and Vancouver. In fact, I would argue the opposite. This probably goes to show you the importance of an elastic housing supply. Indeed, some of the most affordable housing markets are dominated by low-rise houses precisely because it is a typology that is quicker and cheaper to build than most urban infill housing.
Finally, I'm not sure why anyone would consider high rental demand and a strong labor market to be symptomatic of a problem. Isn't that what you usually want out of cities? You want there to be an abundance of good jobs that pay people money so that they can, you know, have a life and consume things like housing. But maybe that's just the way that I look at things. I am a developer after all.
