Population and Housing

[danbrotherston]

Current minimum lot size in Kitchener is 235m² in Kitchener. Add 20% for roads and other infrastructure, about 34ha.

20% for other infra is a low estimate at best. Roads consume a shocking amount of space in our cities, typically between 25% and 40% of total land area, and then you need to include space for things like stormwater management systems, schools, fire stations, parks, commercial plazas. It is highly unlikely that even 50% of land would be used for lots.

And in any case, the minimum lot size is not a good measure of average lot size, almost by definition.

[tomh009]

Current minimum lot size in Kitchener is 235m² in Kitchener. Add 20% for roads and other infrastructure, about 34ha.

34 houses/hectare? That would then require about 40 hectares (0.4 km2) per year for the single-family housing.

@Dan, I agree that the balance should shift toward low-rise and townhome (and maybe some semi-detached). But I suspect completely throttling SFH construction would be politically unpalatable. The 1:1:1 proposal I made would already create a lot of opposition.

Housing starts in 2020:

• Single-family 859
  
• Semi-detached 124
  
• Townhouse 635
  
• Apartment/condo 2,131
  

The total is 3,749, which is actually higher than the 30-year average that I guesstimated. Single-family/semi pace is about 1,000/year which more or less matches the projection (maybe 1,000/year now increasing to 1,400/year) but the apartment construction starts are way higher.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professio...cumulative

[danbrotherston]

Current minimum lot size in Kitchener is 235m² in Kitchener. Add 20% for roads and other infrastructure, about 34ha.

34 houses/hectare? That would then require about 40 hectares (0.4 km2) per year for the single-family housing.

@Dan, I agree that the balance should shift toward low-rise and townhome (and maybe some semi-detached). But I suspect completely throttling SFH construction would be politically unpalatable. The 1:1:1 proposal I made would already create a lot of opposition.

Housing starts in 2020:

• Single-family 859
  
• Semi-detached 124
  
• Townhouse 635
  
• Apartment/condo 2,131
  

The total is 3,749, which is actually higher than the 30-year average that I guesstimated. Single-family/semi pace is about 1,000/year which more or less matches the projection (maybe 1,000/year now increasing to 1,400/year) but the apartment construction starts are way higher.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professio...cumulative

That's a significant underestimate. Average lot size will be larger and an order of magnitude underestimate of extra space needed for roads + common elements + stormwater management.

Yes, there will be considerable opposition to not destroying the earth through climate change.

It does not change the fact that it must be done. We need to set the goals we need to reach, and then figure out how to make the possible. If we aren't going to set goals that actually solves our problems, we might as well not bother.

For Apartment/condo, that's starts, not completions right? If buildings take 2-3 years to complete, so it needs to be averaged over a few years.

The other problem is that even the mid-density development in sprawl continues to be car dependent incomplete communities.

[tomh009]

For Apartment/condo, that's starts, not completions right? If buildings take 2-3 years to complete, so it needs to be averaged over a few years.

Yes, it's starts. But as long as the number of starts per year is fairly consistent, the number of completions will be as well, even if some buildings take longer than others.

[danbrotherston]

For Apartment/condo, that's starts, not completions right? If buildings take 2-3 years to complete, so it needs to be averaged over a few years.

Yes, it's starts. But as long as the number of starts per year is fairly consistent, the number of completions will be as well, even if some buildings take longer than others.

I understand, but that's what I mean, because they take so long to build and approve, large buildings are likely to be more inconsistent per year.

[tomh009]

Yes, it's starts. But as long as the number of starts per year is fairly consistent, the number of completions will be as well, even if some buildings take longer than others.

I understand, but that's what I mean, because they take so long to build and approve, large buildings are likely to be more inconsistent per year.

It's true. CMHC does have data for many years but I don't have time to do an analysis at the moment ...

[danbrotherston]

I understand, but that's what I mean, because they take so long to build and approve, large buildings are likely to be more inconsistent per year.

It's true. CMHC does have data for many years but I don't have time to do an analysis at the moment ...

Fair enough, was just curious.

Ultimately, I think the point remains, I feel we need to significantly increase midrise infill and decrease single family home sprawl.

But frankly, I suspect the most opposition will come from the former not the latter.

[tomh009]

Ultimately, I think the point remains, I feel we need to significantly increase midrise infill and decrease single family home sprawl.

But frankly, I suspect the most opposition will come from the former not the latter.

Mid-rise (stacked townhouses or otherwise) as part of any new suburban development can also contribute to density. The cities could even require a certain minimum density for newly-opened land. And apply less-restrictive zoning regulations to that land -- there would be no existing homeowners complaining about that.

[ijmorlan]

Mid-rise (stacked townhouses or otherwise) as part of any new suburban development can also contribute to density. The cities could even require a certain minimum density for newly-opened land. And apply less-restrictive zoning regulations to that land -- there would be no existing homeowners complaining about that.

Can we start by reducing zoning requirements rather than jumping directly to minimum density? It doesn’t make much sense to require developers to do something when almost everywhere it is illegal to build what we need (including what we might hypothetically require developers to do).

[danbrotherston]

Mid-rise (stacked townhouses or otherwise) as part of any new suburban development can also contribute to density. The cities could even require a certain minimum density for newly-opened land. And apply less-restrictive zoning regulations to that land -- there would be no existing homeowners complaining about that.

Can we start by reducing zoning requirements rather than jumping directly to minimum density? It doesn’t make much sense to require developers to do something when almost everywhere it is illegal to build what we need (including what we might hypothetically require developers to do).

This is on point. But the other problem I see (which is why infill is better) is that very few of our new "sprawl" communities are real communities. At least with infill some of the infill will be in complete communities.

We need a much broader change than just housing form.

[nms]

It would be interesting to see how commercial growth fits into new communities. From what I have seen (and admittedly, I have not toured many developments), most of the commercial space that is part of the "live-work" units that encourage ground floor commercial uses trend towards medical, particularly counselling, or investment brokers. Other ground floor units without connecting residential tends to be either small scale restaurants or convenience-level stores. How long does it take for community to be in place before other types of commercial moves in? I'm thinking of things like hardware stores, book stores or what might typically have been in a "small-town, walkable" main street. Without a complete commercial profile, residents will still need to travel elsewhere for those needs, either by walking, biking, transit or driving.

[danbrotherston]

It would be interesting to see how commercial develop fits into new communities.  From what I have seen (and admittedly, I have not toured many developments), most of the commercial space that is part of the "live-work" units that encourage ground floor commercial uses trend towards medical, particularly counselling, or investment brokers.  Other ground floor units without connecting residential tends to be either small scale restaurants or convenience-level stores. How long does it take for community to be in place before other types of commercial moves in? I'm thinking of things like hardware stores, book stores or what might typically have been in a "small-town, walkable" main street.  Without a complete commercial profile, residents will still need to travel elsewhere for those needs, either by walking, biking, transit or driving.

I think things like hardware stores will struggle to ever regain the main street experience. A few reasons, they are primarily destinations, not browsable, so they don't benefit from main street as some businesses do. They are a more occasional shopping destination for most people...they go when they need to do work. They are the kind of place that you often will more often need a vehicle to transport items from anyway.

For other retail, electronics stores, various clothing, etc. I think it is still a very hard sell. The main advantage businesses see of those locations is the proximity of people. So businesses which benefit most from that are the ones that will locate there--convenience stores, restaurants, etc. I think it won't make economic sense for a more "complete" commercial profile to exist until we have regulations which address the externalities to other businesses. I.e., an electronics retailer will always prefer to locate in a big box development because they will always benefit from scale and parking etc. because they don't have to pay for the roads or environmental damage or sit in traffic etc.

[plam]

It would be interesting to see how commercial develop fits into new communities.  From what I have seen (and admittedly, I have not toured many developments), most of the commercial space that is part of the "live-work" units that encourage ground floor commercial uses trend towards medical, particularly counselling, or investment brokers.  Other ground floor units without connecting residential tends to be either small scale restaurants or convenience-level stores. How long does it take for community to be in place before other types of commercial moves in? I'm thinking of things like hardware stores, book stores or what might typically have been in a "small-town, walkable" main street.  Without a complete commercial profile, residents will still need to travel elsewhere for those needs, either by walking, biking, transit or driving.

I think things like hardware stores will struggle to ever regain the main street experience. A few reasons, they are primarily destinations, not browsable, so they don't benefit from main street as some businesses do. They are a more occasional shopping destination for most people...they go when they need to do work. They are the kind of place that you often will more often need a vehicle to transport items from anyway.

For other retail, electronics stores, various clothing, etc. I think it is still a very hard sell. The main advantage businesses see of those locations is the proximity of people. So businesses which benefit most from that are the ones that will locate there--convenience stores, restaurants, etc. I think it won't make economic sense for a more "complete" commercial profile to exist until we have regulations which address the externalities to other businesses. I.e., an electronics retailer will always prefer to locate in a big box development because they will always benefit from scale and parking etc. because they don't have to pay for the roads or environmental damage or sit in traffic etc.

Cell phone repair probably. Others are trickier as you say. Though the Home Hardware on King St in Waterloo kind of works.

[danbrotherston]

I think things like hardware stores will struggle to ever regain the main street experience. A few reasons, they are primarily destinations, not browsable, so they don't benefit from main street as some businesses do. They are a more occasional shopping destination for most people...they go when they need to do work. They are the kind of place that you often will more often need a vehicle to transport items from anyway.

For other retail, electronics stores, various clothing, etc. I think it is still a very hard sell. The main advantage businesses see of those locations is the proximity of people. So businesses which benefit most from that are the ones that will locate there--convenience stores, restaurants, etc. I think it won't make economic sense for a more "complete" commercial profile to exist until we have regulations which address the externalities to other businesses. I.e., an electronics retailer will always prefer to locate in a big box development because they will always benefit from scale and parking etc. because they don't have to pay for the roads or environmental damage or sit in traffic etc.

Cell phone repair probably. Others are trickier as you say. Though the Home Hardware on King St in Waterloo kind of works.

That is definitely a counter example...I'm impressed they survive.

[tomh009]

I think things like hardware stores will struggle to ever regain the main street experience. A few reasons, they are primarily destinations, not browsable, so they don't benefit from main street as some businesses do. They are a more occasional shopping destination for most people...they go when they need to do work. They are the kind of place that you often will more often need a vehicle to transport items from anyway.

For other retail, electronics stores, various clothing, etc. I think it is still a very hard sell. The main advantage businesses see of those locations is the proximity of people. So businesses which benefit most from that are the ones that will locate there--convenience stores, restaurants, etc. I think it won't make economic sense for a more "complete" commercial profile to exist until we have regulations which address the externalities to other businesses. I.e., an electronics retailer will always prefer to locate in a big box development because they will always benefit from scale and parking etc. because they don't have to pay for the roads or environmental damage or sit in traffic etc.

Cell phone repair probably. Others are trickier as you say. Though the Home Hardware on King St in Waterloo kind of works.

Specialist shops that don't have a huge footprint can succeed. Not only phone repair but also phone sales -- maybe even a Samsung or Microsoft store. Specialized clothing. Specialized sports stores (running, skateboarding, bicycles). Niche bookstores. Pet shops. Rogers, Bell or Telus store. Flower/plant shops. Shops like Flying Tiger or Muji.

There are lots of possible retailers that are not big box stores. Hopefully some of those will start to appear soon.