Raise the Hammer
By Ryan McGreal
Published September 11, 2012
Many signs indicate that the postwar lifestyle consensus of suburban living and long automobile commutes is running out of steam, and we have another data point from the Pembina Institute in a recently-published study titled Live Where You Go.
The key phrase is "location-efficient", which refers to land use that allows people to live, work and play without having to drive everywhere. Location-efficient development combines walkable/cyclable streets, high quality rapid transit, density and a variety of amenities and uses to create complete places that make more efficient use of land and energy than low-density, single-use, car-dependent suburbs.
According to the study, which was produced by the Pembina Institute and the Royal Bank of Canada, Ontario residents increasingly prefer to live in more location-efficient communities, but are stymied by a lack of affordable options:
while the preference for location-efficient living may be increasing, affordable location-efficient options are not. Developers continue to build in sprawling greenfields because it is often cheaper and easier than building developments in walkable, transit-oriented neighbourhoods. Lack of supply means homebuyers are priced out of location-efficient neighbourhoods and literally driven to the urban fringes, where long and stressful auto commutes are required.
Even worse, transportation and other costs can cancel out lower prices for remote homes.
The solution is for cities to get better at encouraging affordable urban living, and the study makes five policy recommendations.
1. A better location cost calculator that takes transportation costs into account so buyers can determine whether higher suburban transport costs offset lower housing prices.
2. Development charges need to reflect the cost of development. Today's one-size-fits-all development charge model charges the same rate to suburban greenfield expansion as it does to infill, even though the actual municipal cost to service those developments is wildly divergent. The current system punishes infill while at the same time providing an artificial subsidy to sprawl.
3. Tax rates for surface parking should be higher to reflect the inefficiency of land use and internalize the negative externality of auto-dependent land use.
4. Minimum parking requirements have to go. Developers should be able to provide parking as the market demands, not as zoning requirements mandate.
5. Metrolinx should make zoning for density and transit-oriented development a requirement for funding of rapit transit projects.
By CaptainKirk (anonymous)
Posted September 11, 2012 at 08:16:11
By Fred Street (anonymous)
Posted September 11, 2012 at 13:48:03
in reply to Comment 80812
By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted September 11, 2012 at 08:28:08
in reply to Comment 80812
By Pxtl (registered) - website
Posted September 11, 2012 at 10:01:37
The problem with #4 is that we end up with a "tragedy of the commons" with nearby parking - any parking that the city has provided for the convenience of locals is abused. While I agree that parking requirements need to be flexible and consider the the clientele and area, abolishing them altogether isn't a great solution.
By entitled (anonymous)
Posted September 11, 2012 at 10:05:48
in reply to Comment 80816
By highwater (registered)
Posted September 11, 2012 at 12:33:15
in reply to Comment 80817
By Robert D (anonymous)
Posted September 12, 2012 at 16:38:45
By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted September 12, 2012 at 17:16:35
in reply to Comment 80884
By concerned (anonymous)
Posted September 12, 2012 at 17:02:19
in reply to Comment 80884