Housing shortfall, costs and affordability

[tomh009]

$15 million in provincial funding may be cut due to the region falling drastically short of its 2023 housing goal: https://archive.ph/5Qx64

The region's argument is that they have approved well more than the goal, but the developers have deferred the starts, whether due to financing, interest rates, subcontractor availability or something else. And they do have a point: they can control approvals, but not the actual starts.

[bravado]

$15 million in provincial funding may be cut due to the region falling drastically short of its 2023 housing goal: https://archive.ph/5Qx64

The region's argument is that they have approved well more than the goal, but the developers have deferred the starts, whether due to financing, interest rates, subcontractor availability or something else. And they do have a point: they can control approvals, but not the actual starts.

But also nobody should trust municipal governments - when they say "approved", it might not mean actually fully approved and ready to build.

[panamaniac]

The region's argument is that they have approved well more than the goal, but the developers have deferred the starts, whether due to financing, interest rates, subcontractor availability or something else. And they do have a point: they can control approvals, but not the actual starts.

But also nobody should trust municipal governments - when they say "approved", it might not mean actually fully approved and ready to build.

How so?  A project is either approved or not approved, no?

[ZEBuilder]

But also nobody should trust municipal governments - when they say "approved", it might not mean actually fully approved and ready to build.

How so?  A project is either approved or not approved, no?

I think what bravado is getting at is that there's different levels of approval, for most projects that the general public hears about that results in a ZBA/OPA approval however that is really only the first step in the approval process. Once one gets approval at the ZBA/OPA level one still has to go through and get approvals at the SPA level (site plan) and then building permits need to be applied for and issued, then finally everything is approved and ready to build. 

For example 417 King St W, it has ZBA/OPA approval but it still needs to get SPA before VanMar can even apply for building permits, so it may be 'approved' in most people's eyes but it doesn't mean shovels can go in the ground because there are still other approvals it needs to get.

[tomh009]

I think site plan approval would be a reasonable criterion. Developers may not get actual building permits if they are going to put the project on the shelf, but once the site plan is approved, the city has essentially approved the project subject to a building plan that meets the standards (and matches the site plan).

[danbrotherston]

I think site plan approval would be a reasonable criterion. Developers may not get actual building permits if they are going to put the project on the shelf, but once the site plan is approved, the city has essentially approved the project subject to a building plan that meets the standards (and matches the site plan).

Still no guarantee that a project that received site plan approval that doesn't get built doesn't come back to the city.

At least, if I understand the process correctly, the city often modifies the proposal from developers. The city is not necessarily privy to the developers business plan, and those changes could turn a project from a profitable one to pursue to an profitable one to shelve and try to divest of.

[ac3r]

'Housing over parking' idea interests regional and Kitchener councillors: https://archive.ph/vCthl

This headline reads like an article from The Onion lmfao.

Maximize the utilization of space? Wow what a great new idea. Can't wait for them to spent half a million dollars hiring some consultants to do studies on this, only for any concrete plans or proposals to get shot down by the same council after some angry NIMBY letters.

Also this also shows you how regressive Cambridgians (or whatever) truly are haha. Their council was like >:-( yet both Kitchener and Waterloo are like :-) :-O hmm this is not a bad idea.

[bravado]

'Housing over parking' idea interests regional and Kitchener councillors: https://archive.ph/vCthl

This headline reads like an article from The Onion lmfao.

Maximize the utilization of space? Wow what a great new idea. Can't wait for them to spent half a million dollars hiring some consultants to do studies on this, only for any concrete plans or proposals to get shot down by the same council after some angry NIMBY letters.

Also this also shows you how regressive Cambridgians (or whatever) truly are haha. Their council was like >:-( yet both Kitchener and Waterloo are like :-) :-O hmm this is not a bad idea.

The response has been quite negative in local media and groups in Cambridge and I resent your endless insults, council was 5-4 on this and we are not a unitary group. Selfishness and short sightedness is not a rare commodity in municipal politics.

[ijmorlan]

The word you’re looking for is “Cantabrigian”.

[tomh009]

I think site plan approval would be a reasonable criterion. Developers may not get actual building permits if they are going to put the project on the shelf, but once the site plan is approved, the city has essentially approved the project subject to a building plan that meets the standards (and matches the site plan).

Still no guarantee that a project that received site plan approval that doesn't get built doesn't come back to the city.

At least, if I understand the process correctly, the city often modifies the proposal from developers. The city is not necessarily privy to the developers business plan, and those changes could turn a project from a profitable one to pursue to an profitable one to shelve and try to divest of.

As in, the developer could request a modified site plan, after the city has already approved one? (The city will not typically request any significant changes at the building permit stage.)

The point being, that if the city has approved a site plan, the developer has the ability to proceed. If the developer doesn't accept the changes, the site plan does not normally proceed to the approval step. (Whether their business plan is viable is not something the city can determine.)

[tomh009]

The response has been quite negative in local media and groups in Cambridge and I resent your endless insults, council was 5-4 on this and we are not a unitary group. Selfishness and short sightedness is not a rare commodity in municipal politics.

To quote the mayor: "You people need to be looking at doing something like this as a group." So apparently this is not her (or the city's) problem.

[ac3r]

The word you’re looking for is “Cantabrigian”.

Actually, there is no consensus on what the proper term is haha. Cantabrigia just borrows directly from the English term, but is a weird term (the English often argue whether this makes any sense to use). There's Cambridgian and Cambridgite as well. 

This reminds me, Cambridge Times ran an article on this early last year: https://www.cambridgetimes.ca/opinion/it...2f24a.html

The response has been quite negative in local media and groups in Cambridge and I resent your endless insults, council was 5-4 on this and we are not a unitary group. Selfishness and short sightedness is not a rare commodity in municipal politics.

Not sure why you are taking my completely pseudonymous comments about the City of Cambridge personally...that rather odd, really. I can insult it if I wish, it's not that deep.

[danbrotherston]

Still no guarantee that a project that received site plan approval that doesn't get built doesn't come back to the city.

At least, if I understand the process correctly, the city often modifies the proposal from developers. The city is not necessarily privy to the developers business plan, and those changes could turn a project from a profitable one to pursue to an profitable one to shelve and try to divest of.

As in, the developer could request a modified site plan, after the city has already approved one? (The city will not typically request any significant changes at the building permit stage.)

The point being, that if the city has approved a site plan, the developer has the ability to proceed. If the developer doesn't accept the changes, the site plan does not normally proceed to the approval step. (Whether their business plan is viable is not something the city can determine.)

I'm suggesting that changes that the city requests could change a developer's priority. For example, they could choose to instead try to sell the property to another developer, we've seen this happen a few times, where the city has requested changes, and then, despite approvals being given the property doesn't get developed and is eventually sold.

I mean, I am not saying that the developer would absolutely have developed it if the city hadn't made changes, but I think it's feasible.

In any case, I don't really have a solution for that, other than opening up way more development...not that I really think we need one...I don't think people looking for housing care how many units the city approves, they care how many are built.

[tomh009]

I don't think people looking for housing care how many units the city approves, they care how many are built.

Understood. But we can't force private developers to build. To ensure the construction is actually done, we would have to do public/community/council housing. Kitchener Housing x10, effectively.

Otherwise, all the city can do is allow construction to happen.

[jeffster]

$15 million in provincial funding may be cut due to the region falling drastically short of its 2023 housing goal: https://archive.ph/5Qx64

The region's argument is that they have approved well more than the goal, but the developers have deferred the starts, whether due to financing, interest rates, subcontractor availability or something else. And they do have a point: they can control approvals, but not the actual starts.

Oddly, though, other cities aren't having the same issue. This tells me it's a problem with the region and the cities within. So many councillors in the city halls bend over backwards to NIMBY's and in general, a lot of red tap and very slow approvals, make it ripe for developers not bending over backwards themselves to get things going here.

We need a change: the mayors are not doing enough, and the chairwoman for the region is very unhelpful.