> Truthfully I don't think this is an issue the federal government is in a position to solve any time soon.
I agree in general. There is some stuff the federal government can do, which is to return to funding social housing. The Federal government for a long time provided subsidized housing in the post war period up to the 1970s-80s.
> If I had a singular policy suggestion, after having talked to some friends in the industry, it would be to pump federal money into expediting site plan approvals and environmental assessments done at a county or municipal level.
I've seen similar. One of the biggest issues that is almost never talked about is development (land improvement?) taxes occur late in the process. So when it comes to multi-dwelling development, there is substantial risk the developers have to take on and manage, because they could get slapped with losing all their profits in surprise taxes near the end of the project (besides all the risks for building costs in general). I think the stats is in the ballpark of 2/10 building are successes, 6/10 are break even, and 2/10 are are losses. At $100-$400 million a piece for a medium sized tower, imagine taking on that risk profile... I can't. So cities need to understand the risks they're transferring to development, and fund their infrastructure upgrades through good and solid planning upfront.
Another related idea I saw from a youtube video on Vancouver I think it was, was the return to the Vancouver standard house plan. It was one of the post war house plans, and while there were a couple variations and you could make superficial changes, it was extremely cheap to get approvals for because the city was basically approving the same structure every time, and were so used to it the reviews were cheap and easy.
So you're right, just finding the opportunities to optimize that process for both the City and Developer is essential. And also allowing basement apartments and other medium density development. The giant towers are hella expensive if that's the only density getting built.
I agree in general. There is some stuff the federal government can do, which is to return to funding social housing. The Federal government for a long time provided subsidized housing in the post war period up to the 1970s-80s.
> If I had a singular policy suggestion, after having talked to some friends in the industry, it would be to pump federal money into expediting site plan approvals and environmental assessments done at a county or municipal level.
I've seen similar. One of the biggest issues that is almost never talked about is development (land improvement?) taxes occur late in the process. So when it comes to multi-dwelling development, there is substantial risk the developers have to take on and manage, because they could get slapped with losing all their profits in surprise taxes near the end of the project (besides all the risks for building costs in general). I think the stats is in the ballpark of 2/10 building are successes, 6/10 are break even, and 2/10 are are losses. At $100-$400 million a piece for a medium sized tower, imagine taking on that risk profile... I can't. So cities need to understand the risks they're transferring to development, and fund their infrastructure upgrades through good and solid planning upfront.
Another related idea I saw from a youtube video on Vancouver I think it was, was the return to the Vancouver standard house plan. It was one of the post war house plans, and while there were a couple variations and you could make superficial changes, it was extremely cheap to get approvals for because the city was basically approving the same structure every time, and were so used to it the reviews were cheap and easy.
So you're right, just finding the opportunities to optimize that process for both the City and Developer is essential. And also allowing basement apartments and other medium density development. The giant towers are hella expensive if that's the only density getting built.