For you urbanites out there, check out this podcast with Ryan Avent, author of The Gated City.
Avent's central thesis is that cities in the United States such as Boston, NYC, San Francisco and Washington D.C. are all very desirable places to live but are very expensive to live in. There are many reasons for this including limited and restrictive housing construction which drives up housing costs. Thus, they have not seen the same levels of population growth and housing stock construction as places like Houston, Las Vegas and Phoenix, for example.
Is this a bad thing? Depends on which question you are asking. Avent suggests that the coastal cities that have not seen a growing housing stock and are pricing out a lot of people (including middle class families and skilled labour). These are the people we need to keep our cities productive. As cities become more and more attractive places, demand for housing will inevitably increase.
But if housing supply does not respond to this demand, then how are they suppose to grow? And if one of our goals is to foster vibrant and productive cities by providing skilled jobs for people who cannot even afford to live there (hint hint,Vancouver) then we fail at achieving our main goal.
Avent talks about how self-interested people living in high dense and highly desirably places (like San Francisco) can fight against housing development in their neighbourhoods (classic NIMBYism) which pushes that development away to other places that are more open to housing development such as Houston. Sound familiar? It should be. Ed Glaeser discusses the environmental implications of this at length.
Some statistics and facts from the podcast:
"The median owner-occupied home in Houston in 2009 was just about $130,000 in value. And in San Jose it was over $600,000. And that just dwarfs the difference in wages. And it's not associated with the difference in construction costs. There is a difference in construction costs but it's very small relative to the premium due to the difficulty in building in those areas in the country".
"From 2001-2009, the housing stock in Boston, NY, and the Silicon Valley area, each of those, it grew by a little over 5%. And then you look at a city like Las Vegas, the housing stock grew by almost 40%. And in places like Phoenix and Charlotte it grew by 25%. So it's just a huge difference in growth in the housing stock, which really has nothing to do with demand but has entirely to do with the ease of building in those places".
There is a fascinating discussion in this podcast about city politics, urban planning, how zoning can be problematic, the consequences of distorting public policy and much more.
If you want a more condensed version of this, check out this 10 minute video via The Economist.
Here is a short review of the book.
Showing posts with label Housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Housing. Show all posts
Monday, November 7, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
A Green Mortgage
Looking at buying a home? Even the banks can see the benefits of going green and are happy to reward you for it.
In March of 2011, the Bank of Montreal (BMO) began offering a mortgage plan that provides a relatively low lending rate to homeowners whose homes are 'green'. Provided your home meets the necessary criteria -- primarily having ENERGY STAR rated products and several other high efficiency units -- you can receive a lending rate several points lower than the typical mortgage. For example, the current rate on a low five year fixed mortgage from BMO is 4.14%, while the green mortgage comes in at 3.89%, which could save homeowners thousands of dollars over the five year period.
BMO isn't the only Canadian bank in on this. TD also has a similar discounted rate, while RBC and CIBC offer rebates from certain home inspections and energy upgrades.
It's nice to see the private sector starting to pick up some of the slack left behind by the federal government -- ahem, the Harper Government. After years as a success under Liberal and Conservative governments, the ecoEnergy home retrofit program (formerly EnerGuide) was discontinued in March, 2011. The programs had provided Canadian home and business owners with significant rebates for energy-related upgrades, upwards of $10,000 when paired with matching provincial rebates. Given the Conservative environmental platform, its vow to cut the deficit and its new majority government, it seems highly unlikely that any similar program will return anytime soon.
Home retrofits are some of the most economical changes people can make to decrease their environmental impact on the world. Things like weather stripping, insulation and new furnaces can often pay for themselves in energy savings in less than five years. Unfortunately, the high upfront cost can prohibit a lot of homeowners from making such investments, so every little bit helps.
Of course, given the current state of the Canadian economy and the hit the mortgage market took in the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to get your hands on a mortgage. And given the strict criteria for the plan, this will likely benefit the affluent before the poor. But hey, you have to start somewhere.
In March of 2011, the Bank of Montreal (BMO) began offering a mortgage plan that provides a relatively low lending rate to homeowners whose homes are 'green'. Provided your home meets the necessary criteria -- primarily having ENERGY STAR rated products and several other high efficiency units -- you can receive a lending rate several points lower than the typical mortgage. For example, the current rate on a low five year fixed mortgage from BMO is 4.14%, while the green mortgage comes in at 3.89%, which could save homeowners thousands of dollars over the five year period.
BMO isn't the only Canadian bank in on this. TD also has a similar discounted rate, while RBC and CIBC offer rebates from certain home inspections and energy upgrades.
It's nice to see the private sector starting to pick up some of the slack left behind by the federal government -- ahem, the Harper Government. After years as a success under Liberal and Conservative governments, the ecoEnergy home retrofit program (formerly EnerGuide) was discontinued in March, 2011. The programs had provided Canadian home and business owners with significant rebates for energy-related upgrades, upwards of $10,000 when paired with matching provincial rebates. Given the Conservative environmental platform, its vow to cut the deficit and its new majority government, it seems highly unlikely that any similar program will return anytime soon.
Home retrofits are some of the most economical changes people can make to decrease their environmental impact on the world. Things like weather stripping, insulation and new furnaces can often pay for themselves in energy savings in less than five years. Unfortunately, the high upfront cost can prohibit a lot of homeowners from making such investments, so every little bit helps.
Of course, given the current state of the Canadian economy and the hit the mortgage market took in the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to get your hands on a mortgage. And given the strict criteria for the plan, this will likely benefit the affluent before the poor. But hey, you have to start somewhere.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The unintended consequences of environmentalism
This post is about the unintended consequences of environmentalism, something well articulated by Edward Glaeser, author of a recent book called Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier.
To begin, Ed Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars. He teaches economics at Harvard and has written about cities for a long time. His new book is a great read intended for anyone who loves cities and is curious about how they can/will change in the future as they become even more populated. For anyone wishing to grasp a historical and contemporary overview of how cities have shaped this world, his book is worth a read. The book features a number of cities from the booming IT sector in Bangalore to the ostensible greenery that Manhattan residents practice on a daily basis. The thesis of the book is that cities, if governed well by sensible public policies and institutions, are the world's greatest centres for allowing human beings to interact, innovate, create and live healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyles.
The greenness of cities is one part of Glaeser's book where he writes about how much more green and sustainable cities are than suburbs because urbanites use less electricity. For those statistical geeks out there, the book is full of numbers and impressive facts that illustrate how much more "green" cities are and can be over the much beloved suburban lifestyle that has been pervasive across the U.S. since 1945.
Some facts: the average single family detached home consumes 88 percent more electricity than the average apartment in a five or more unit building. The average suburban household consumes 27 percent more electricity than the average urban household. Electricity consumption is not only higher in suburban environments, but also in humid climates that require copious amounts of air conditioning. When gasoline consumption enters the discussion, things get even more dismal.
So, what about the unintended consequences of environmentalism? The idea here is that certain places in the United States like Houston, have local governments that are much more friendly to developers and pro-growth than other places in Coastal California or the Northeast. California has a more hospitable climate that does not require as much cooling in the summer or heat in the winter. Home heating and air conditioning are energy intensive and can be expensive household items overtime. By contrast, Houston or Atlanta, much more humid by comparison, require more energy for habitability.
Local environmentalists, many times fueled by NIMBYism, are eager to block housing development in the climate friendly areas. Most often, the arguments are for the protection of wildlife and ecosystems that are sensitive to development. These are valid reasons, however, they are often made based on incomplete environmental impact assessments.
"By using ecological arguments to oppose growth, California environmentalists are ensuring that America's carbon footprint will rise, by pushing new housing to less temperate climates".
Given California's more natural climate that minimizes the need for air conditioning and home heating, it is, from a carbon emissions point of view, a much more environmentally friendly place to develop housing than the aforementioned cities. Sadly, growth in places like Santa Clara County (California) has been slow; between 1990 and 2008, the county grew by 17.8 percent, significantly less than the national average. Prices have also remained high in these more climate friendly areas due to limited growth (constrained housing supply, land use restrictions and NIMBYism.
This problem is a fascinating one that should intrigue urban planners. While Glaeser is quick to criticize some aspects of the planning profession, he recognizes that this particular problem is one that warrants more attention and the involvement of planners given our current discussions about cities, suburbs and climate change.
My quick assessment of the conundrum raised by Glaeser is that planners should actually utilize a framework that illustrates the effect of housing on climate change. It's not just a matter of locating housing in more temperate environments, such as coastal California, but also thinking about increasing residential density in places that will have the least impact on carbon emission output. Whether this is Manhattan or San Francisco, both of which are very expensive places, we must consider the full costs of housing including the environmental impact.
To begin, Ed Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars. He teaches economics at Harvard and has written about cities for a long time. His new book is a great read intended for anyone who loves cities and is curious about how they can/will change in the future as they become even more populated. For anyone wishing to grasp a historical and contemporary overview of how cities have shaped this world, his book is worth a read. The book features a number of cities from the booming IT sector in Bangalore to the ostensible greenery that Manhattan residents practice on a daily basis. The thesis of the book is that cities, if governed well by sensible public policies and institutions, are the world's greatest centres for allowing human beings to interact, innovate, create and live healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyles.
The greenness of cities is one part of Glaeser's book where he writes about how much more green and sustainable cities are than suburbs because urbanites use less electricity. For those statistical geeks out there, the book is full of numbers and impressive facts that illustrate how much more "green" cities are and can be over the much beloved suburban lifestyle that has been pervasive across the U.S. since 1945.
Some facts: the average single family detached home consumes 88 percent more electricity than the average apartment in a five or more unit building. The average suburban household consumes 27 percent more electricity than the average urban household. Electricity consumption is not only higher in suburban environments, but also in humid climates that require copious amounts of air conditioning. When gasoline consumption enters the discussion, things get even more dismal.
So, what about the unintended consequences of environmentalism? The idea here is that certain places in the United States like Houston, have local governments that are much more friendly to developers and pro-growth than other places in Coastal California or the Northeast. California has a more hospitable climate that does not require as much cooling in the summer or heat in the winter. Home heating and air conditioning are energy intensive and can be expensive household items overtime. By contrast, Houston or Atlanta, much more humid by comparison, require more energy for habitability.
Local environmentalists, many times fueled by NIMBYism, are eager to block housing development in the climate friendly areas. Most often, the arguments are for the protection of wildlife and ecosystems that are sensitive to development. These are valid reasons, however, they are often made based on incomplete environmental impact assessments.
"By using ecological arguments to oppose growth, California environmentalists are ensuring that America's carbon footprint will rise, by pushing new housing to less temperate climates".
Given California's more natural climate that minimizes the need for air conditioning and home heating, it is, from a carbon emissions point of view, a much more environmentally friendly place to develop housing than the aforementioned cities. Sadly, growth in places like Santa Clara County (California) has been slow; between 1990 and 2008, the county grew by 17.8 percent, significantly less than the national average. Prices have also remained high in these more climate friendly areas due to limited growth (constrained housing supply, land use restrictions and NIMBYism.
This problem is a fascinating one that should intrigue urban planners. While Glaeser is quick to criticize some aspects of the planning profession, he recognizes that this particular problem is one that warrants more attention and the involvement of planners given our current discussions about cities, suburbs and climate change.
My quick assessment of the conundrum raised by Glaeser is that planners should actually utilize a framework that illustrates the effect of housing on climate change. It's not just a matter of locating housing in more temperate environments, such as coastal California, but also thinking about increasing residential density in places that will have the least impact on carbon emission output. Whether this is Manhattan or San Francisco, both of which are very expensive places, we must consider the full costs of housing including the environmental impact.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Hong Kong Apartment that transforms into 24 rooms
In this video, Gary Chang, an architect, has designed his 344 sq. ft. Hong Kong apartment in a way that is able to change into 24 different designs.
The mirrors in the main room have combined reflective metal and glass surfaces that increase the light value within the apartment. The apartment receives a lot of natural light through the tinted windows which has significantly decreased his use of electricity.
Such small spaces have huge eco-friendly possibilities. Indeed, Hong Kong's population and housing density, as I witnessed when I was there, can allow people like Gary to innovate with environmentally sustainable solutions.
For a longer version of the video, click here.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Guest Entry: Climate Change and the Construction Industry
By: Trevor Shah
We frequently hear about the negative impacts of climate change, but not often do we talk about the potential positive impacts and the opportunities that can stem from it. I wanted to take the chance to write about an industry that stands to benefit from increased global temperatures: the North American construction industry.
But before I begin explaining why this industry will benefit from higher global temperatures, please note that I will be using the A2 scenario from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). This conservative scenario projects an increase in global temperatures by about two degrees Celsius. Evidently, this temperature rise will contribute to many environmental changes which will greatly affect the construction industry.
To begin, there will be a rise in home and corporate building retrofits which will generate additional business for the construction industry. This is primarily due to rising electricity and natural gas prices in North America. Total electricity demand is projected to increase by 30 percent in 2035 (from 2008 levels). Accompanying this growth in demand is a 39 percent rise in electricity prices from the current average price. In addition, the price of natural gas in the U.S. and Canada is expected to double as demand intensifies and lower-cost resources are depleted. If the United States and Canadian governments decide to introduce a carbon tax system, the price of natural gas will rise even further. This is because natural gas produces 117,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per billion British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy.
Due to rising energy prices, housing and building retrofits will generate higher savings and shorter payback periods. Furthermore, building retrofits will grow even more profoundly if Canadian and American governments continue to offer incentives such as energy retrofit programs. The U.S. Government will be offering $452 million for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE program) which will allocate funds for energy efficiency retrofits. The United States government also recently introduced the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) PowerSaver Loan Program which provides Americans with up to $25,000 in low-cost loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These programs will lead to considerable growth in home retrofits resulting in additional business for the construction industry.
Second, the United States will continue to experience increasing weather extremes due to climate change: heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity, hurricanes, heat waves, rainfall intensity and cold season storms are likely to become more frequent with stronger winds. Combined, these weather extremes will cause a surge in property damage.
In addition, regions with rivers and lakes will need to be protected from floods as the amplified intensity of rainfall and storms continues to rise. The associated clean-up and repair work will generate considerable business for the North American construction industry. This is what Matt Kahn discusses at length in his book Climatopolis. That is, forward looking entrepreneurs --such as those found in the construction industry -- can reap huge profits if people start to think more seriously about the value of adapting to climate change. People will soon realize the need to make their homes more climate change resilient and this will allow the construction industry and other forward looking entrepreneurs to innovate and make profits.
The demand for more resilient building materials, greater protection buffers around our homes and even the floating home idea proposed by Tom Mayne, will not only help urbanites adapt to climate change risks (floods, hurriances etc) but bring about new innovation, smart design and creativity from construction companies, product designers and more.
There will certainly be negative consequences of rising global temperatures on the North American construction industry. Firstly, the cost of construction materials are likely to increase due to higher demand, greater transportation costs, depletion of natural resources and future carbon taxes. Secondly, rises in global temperature may create unsafe working conditions due to extreme heat and the frequency of heat waves (say if you live in cities like LA or Phoenix). Lastly, melting of the permafrost will reduce the bearing capacity of the soil causing settlement and structural damage. However, these negative impacts are offset by the significant benefits.
I don’t mean to paint a negative or daunting future for North America. Instead, I wanted to talk about some of the opportunities that climate change can bring to industries like construction and forward looking people who care about the future and environmental sustainability.
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is currently on an international student exchange in Bangkok, Thailand.
We frequently hear about the negative impacts of climate change, but not often do we talk about the potential positive impacts and the opportunities that can stem from it. I wanted to take the chance to write about an industry that stands to benefit from increased global temperatures: the North American construction industry.
But before I begin explaining why this industry will benefit from higher global temperatures, please note that I will be using the A2 scenario from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). This conservative scenario projects an increase in global temperatures by about two degrees Celsius. Evidently, this temperature rise will contribute to many environmental changes which will greatly affect the construction industry.
To begin, there will be a rise in home and corporate building retrofits which will generate additional business for the construction industry. This is primarily due to rising electricity and natural gas prices in North America. Total electricity demand is projected to increase by 30 percent in 2035 (from 2008 levels). Accompanying this growth in demand is a 39 percent rise in electricity prices from the current average price. In addition, the price of natural gas in the U.S. and Canada is expected to double as demand intensifies and lower-cost resources are depleted. If the United States and Canadian governments decide to introduce a carbon tax system, the price of natural gas will rise even further. This is because natural gas produces 117,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per billion British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy.
Due to rising energy prices, housing and building retrofits will generate higher savings and shorter payback periods. Furthermore, building retrofits will grow even more profoundly if Canadian and American governments continue to offer incentives such as energy retrofit programs. The U.S. Government will be offering $452 million for the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE program) which will allocate funds for energy efficiency retrofits. The United States government also recently introduced the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) PowerSaver Loan Program which provides Americans with up to $25,000 in low-cost loans from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These programs will lead to considerable growth in home retrofits resulting in additional business for the construction industry.
Second, the United States will continue to experience increasing weather extremes due to climate change: heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity, hurricanes, heat waves, rainfall intensity and cold season storms are likely to become more frequent with stronger winds. Combined, these weather extremes will cause a surge in property damage.
In addition, regions with rivers and lakes will need to be protected from floods as the amplified intensity of rainfall and storms continues to rise. The associated clean-up and repair work will generate considerable business for the North American construction industry. This is what Matt Kahn discusses at length in his book Climatopolis. That is, forward looking entrepreneurs --such as those found in the construction industry -- can reap huge profits if people start to think more seriously about the value of adapting to climate change. People will soon realize the need to make their homes more climate change resilient and this will allow the construction industry and other forward looking entrepreneurs to innovate and make profits.
The demand for more resilient building materials, greater protection buffers around our homes and even the floating home idea proposed by Tom Mayne, will not only help urbanites adapt to climate change risks (floods, hurriances etc) but bring about new innovation, smart design and creativity from construction companies, product designers and more.
There will certainly be negative consequences of rising global temperatures on the North American construction industry. Firstly, the cost of construction materials are likely to increase due to higher demand, greater transportation costs, depletion of natural resources and future carbon taxes. Secondly, rises in global temperature may create unsafe working conditions due to extreme heat and the frequency of heat waves (say if you live in cities like LA or Phoenix). Lastly, melting of the permafrost will reduce the bearing capacity of the soil causing settlement and structural damage. However, these negative impacts are offset by the significant benefits.
I don’t mean to paint a negative or daunting future for North America. Instead, I wanted to talk about some of the opportunities that climate change can bring to industries like construction and forward looking people who care about the future and environmental sustainability.
Trevor Shah is a third-year commerce student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He is currently on an international student exchange in Bangkok, Thailand.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
An air pollution argument against density
Civic Exchange, a well-known think tank in Hong Kong, argues that increasing density through constructing taller buildings might actually do more harm than good. Their reasoning, which is based on Hong Kong's geography, is contrary to what many urban planners and scholars advocate as “building up” is the urban planner’s dream.
The think tank explains how more densely developed and poorly ventilated neighborhoods with insufficient open space and blocked ventilation corridors, can absorb more heat which intensifies the urban heat island effect. In essence, with less ventilation and more impervious cover, less rainwater is absorbed into the ground and thus the temperature will feel warmer in the urban area.
The tall buildings that form the concrete jungle, will contain more of that heat which really intensifies air pollution as the wind is blocked by the buildings and thus the dirty air is trapped and inhaled by the public. Because the temperature in the urban area increases, it will inevitably be warmer and lead to a greater need for air conditioning. Hong Kong has many areas that have bad air pollution and high density (Mong Kok for example, with high levels of nitrogen dioxide and over 130,000 people per square kilometer).
With complete dependence on air conditioning, this results in more electricity consumption and emissions of hot air; both of which increase the urban temperature. Thus, this leads to a vicious cycle of pollution causing activities (driving and profligate AC use) which warms the temperature in the urban area where people live, and people need cool air to live comfortably which will release more pollution and then repeat the cycle again and again and again.
Higher density through taller buildings means more people living closer to public transit, amenities and social infrastructure. Thus, greater density can lead to more supply and help satisfy demand. This can help lower housing costs for the poor. But, it all depends on design because if those buildings are too close together (lots of examples of this in Hong Kong) then they can block ventilation corridors and thus there are greater air pollution exacerbation risks.
Civic Exchange calls for decreased plot ratios to improve ventilation. In essence, by decreasing a building's plot ratio, the developer is forced to construct smaller units to abide by the zoning laws. Smaller units might take the form of smaller buildings with less people and therefore lower density. My argument: decreasing plot ratios will inevitably make real estate more expensive by constraining supply and increasing demand; this has been argued by Ed Glaeser time and time again.
It is extremely tricky to decrease a building's plot ratio in a City that has such constrained land supply. Where I do agree with the think tank is their vehement support for more open and green space in Hong Kong. This would mean that municipal zoning laws would require more open space around a development. Having more open space for the public to enjoy is a great idea. It will also expand ventilation corridors thereby allowing wind to pass through the concrete jungle more naturally.
Maybe a quick lesson from their publication and this analysis is that buildings (commercial and residential) must be subject to providing recreational and open space in greater quantities. Depending on the jurisdiction, there should be mandated requirements for constructing open space when building a development. Indeed, this is challenging because there is only so much room. Higher plot ratios, as analyzed by the Civic Exchange will not help the air pollution problem in Hong Kong. It is those high density areas like Mong Kok that need to witness the construction of open space such as public parks and sports facilities to prevent further development from exacerbating the air pollution problem.
Key message: Would such urban planning and policy making mean that there is a trade-off between lower density (potentially keeping housing costs unaffordable) and better air quality?
The think tank explains how more densely developed and poorly ventilated neighborhoods with insufficient open space and blocked ventilation corridors, can absorb more heat which intensifies the urban heat island effect. In essence, with less ventilation and more impervious cover, less rainwater is absorbed into the ground and thus the temperature will feel warmer in the urban area.
The tall buildings that form the concrete jungle, will contain more of that heat which really intensifies air pollution as the wind is blocked by the buildings and thus the dirty air is trapped and inhaled by the public. Because the temperature in the urban area increases, it will inevitably be warmer and lead to a greater need for air conditioning. Hong Kong has many areas that have bad air pollution and high density (Mong Kok for example, with high levels of nitrogen dioxide and over 130,000 people per square kilometer).
With complete dependence on air conditioning, this results in more electricity consumption and emissions of hot air; both of which increase the urban temperature. Thus, this leads to a vicious cycle of pollution causing activities (driving and profligate AC use) which warms the temperature in the urban area where people live, and people need cool air to live comfortably which will release more pollution and then repeat the cycle again and again and again.
Higher density through taller buildings means more people living closer to public transit, amenities and social infrastructure. Thus, greater density can lead to more supply and help satisfy demand. This can help lower housing costs for the poor. But, it all depends on design because if those buildings are too close together (lots of examples of this in Hong Kong) then they can block ventilation corridors and thus there are greater air pollution exacerbation risks.
Civic Exchange calls for decreased plot ratios to improve ventilation. In essence, by decreasing a building's plot ratio, the developer is forced to construct smaller units to abide by the zoning laws. Smaller units might take the form of smaller buildings with less people and therefore lower density. My argument: decreasing plot ratios will inevitably make real estate more expensive by constraining supply and increasing demand; this has been argued by Ed Glaeser time and time again.
It is extremely tricky to decrease a building's plot ratio in a City that has such constrained land supply. Where I do agree with the think tank is their vehement support for more open and green space in Hong Kong. This would mean that municipal zoning laws would require more open space around a development. Having more open space for the public to enjoy is a great idea. It will also expand ventilation corridors thereby allowing wind to pass through the concrete jungle more naturally.
Maybe a quick lesson from their publication and this analysis is that buildings (commercial and residential) must be subject to providing recreational and open space in greater quantities. Depending on the jurisdiction, there should be mandated requirements for constructing open space when building a development. Indeed, this is challenging because there is only so much room. Higher plot ratios, as analyzed by the Civic Exchange will not help the air pollution problem in Hong Kong. It is those high density areas like Mong Kok that need to witness the construction of open space such as public parks and sports facilities to prevent further development from exacerbating the air pollution problem.
Key message: Would such urban planning and policy making mean that there is a trade-off between lower density (potentially keeping housing costs unaffordable) and better air quality?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Housing Density and the Environment…
“What is the proper density for city dwellings?” This was a question posed by the late renowned urbanist Jane Jacobs. This question is critiqued by Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser in an insightful post that I encourage you to read. In short, Jacobs (in her active citizenry era) was vocal about the need for density limitations. Density and diversity were two things that she advocated for in the urbanized environment time and time again. But if an area was too dense, Jacobs argued that this would repress diversity and not stimulate it. Thus, she called for density restrictions (usually in dwelling units) so buildings could not grow at extremely tall heights.
Glaeser writes “Jacobs was reacting to the Le Corbusier-inspired public housing passions of the 1950s, when tall structures reflected the passions of planners more than consumer demand. Jacobs was right to emphasize that shorter neighbourhoods also have tremendous virtues”
“But Manhattan’s crime levels have fallen dramatically in recent decades, proving that with sufficient policing, safe streets can be perfectly compatible with tall buildings.”
I’ll touch on the environmental relevance in a bit, but the interesting economics is that restricting new construction and keeping building heights low (because of density maximums) simply means that housing supply cannot satisfy demand. The result is high prices in the city’s core making it only affordable to the wealthy and pushing out the poor. In cities like New York or even Vancouver, the downtown areas or boroughs have really good demand for condos, townhouses and other units because of closeness to work, amenities, the waterfront, public transit etc. Thus by limiting housing supply options, this will immediately force housing development in areas outside of the city in the form of cheaper suburban housing.
I do not have to go at length about the unfortunate (and numerous) ramifications of suburban housing but I want you to think about how your city is growing and what the housing market looks like.
Glaeser says that we should be embracing, not eschewing, densities over 200 units per acre. That’s the safe density number for a place like Manhattan or NYC’s downtown area.
The City of Vancouver (which I’ll blog about at length in the coming months) has not necessarily used density restrictions for urban growth, but has mountains and the ocean to limit housing development in the city. However, the city is all about growing up and not out (an urban planner’s dream) to avoid sprawl. There are many condos and housing units located in the downtown, alas, they are expensive just like Manhattan. So the wealthier class and urban professionals can live and work in the same area. However, the poorer class (with jobs concentrated in the downtown) cannot live there because of housing affordability issues.
Key message: We really need to focus on how we can create affordable spaces in urbanized environments so we don’t see an economic decline that is directly related to the cost of housing. Also, we can make our cities more sustainable and livable this way thereby achieving higher density and creating the impetus for increased public transit use.
Glaeser writes “Jacobs was reacting to the Le Corbusier-inspired public housing passions of the 1950s, when tall structures reflected the passions of planners more than consumer demand. Jacobs was right to emphasize that shorter neighbourhoods also have tremendous virtues”
“But Manhattan’s crime levels have fallen dramatically in recent decades, proving that with sufficient policing, safe streets can be perfectly compatible with tall buildings.”
I’ll touch on the environmental relevance in a bit, but the interesting economics is that restricting new construction and keeping building heights low (because of density maximums) simply means that housing supply cannot satisfy demand. The result is high prices in the city’s core making it only affordable to the wealthy and pushing out the poor. In cities like New York or even Vancouver, the downtown areas or boroughs have really good demand for condos, townhouses and other units because of closeness to work, amenities, the waterfront, public transit etc. Thus by limiting housing supply options, this will immediately force housing development in areas outside of the city in the form of cheaper suburban housing.
I do not have to go at length about the unfortunate (and numerous) ramifications of suburban housing but I want you to think about how your city is growing and what the housing market looks like.
Glaeser says that we should be embracing, not eschewing, densities over 200 units per acre. That’s the safe density number for a place like Manhattan or NYC’s downtown area.
The City of Vancouver (which I’ll blog about at length in the coming months) has not necessarily used density restrictions for urban growth, but has mountains and the ocean to limit housing development in the city. However, the city is all about growing up and not out (an urban planner’s dream) to avoid sprawl. There are many condos and housing units located in the downtown, alas, they are expensive just like Manhattan. So the wealthier class and urban professionals can live and work in the same area. However, the poorer class (with jobs concentrated in the downtown) cannot live there because of housing affordability issues.
Key message: We really need to focus on how we can create affordable spaces in urbanized environments so we don’t see an economic decline that is directly related to the cost of housing. Also, we can make our cities more sustainable and livable this way thereby achieving higher density and creating the impetus for increased public transit use.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
A cleaner, cheaper, more useful type of clean coal...
Bollocks, you'd probably say (and I would hope in an English accent). Well, there's a company in the United States that is hoping to prove you wrong. Based off the naturally occurring process corals use to make their bones, some very innovative entrepreneurs at Calera have developed a method to take carbon emissions from gas and coal-fired plants and mixing it with ocean water to create calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate -- the substance making up coral bones -- can be turned into cement or used as aggregate in construction projects.
There are plenty of small innovative firms out there with cool ideas like this, but Calera could very well make a significant impact. It has already attracted attention from Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat and columnist for the New York Times, and more importantly, significant investment from a major engineering firm confident enough to build several Calera plants.
There are hopes that this process will actually lead to a "clean coal" future, something that is heavily criticized by many because of the extraordinary expense and excruciatingly slow development of mainstream carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. By capturing the carbon emissions from coal and gas plants, it essentially makes them carbon emissions-free. Moreover, the carbon is stored in useful products like cement, as opposed to being pumped in large quantities underground.
A wonderful bonus that comes out of this process is relatively clean water. The salt water used loses about 80% of the properties that make it unsafe to drink, which happens to make it much easier to convert to fresh water using desalination as less energy is required to filter the water.
Considering how much coal is being used to power the world's electricity systems, this process, if actually scalable in an economic fashion, could change the whole playing field. The company is touting the potential of this technology in China and India, which are developing coal plants at a rate of nearly one a day. And since major construction projects and fresh water crises are bound to define much of each country's upcoming future, the technology is especially attractive.
But even if all the potential of this technology does come to fruition, it won't be perfect. Coal is a finite resource. Coal plants, even without carbon emissions, still have significant impacts on our lives. They emit dangerously high levels of toxic chemicals into the air -- even with scrubber technologies -- causing severe health complications. And coal mining is among the most environmentally devastating processes known to our history. I mean, how many other industries can say that they blow the tops off mountains to get what they want?
The trouble is, coal is going to be used excessively whether we like it or not.
No energy technology is perfect, but the Calera technology could at least make a significant dent as we try to lower carbon emissions. It's amazing what we can learn from nature. One hopes we don't kill too much of it off as we do.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Using Nature to Sell Housing Part 2...
I had some time last week to bike around Peterborough and photograph some of the newer sub-divisions being constructed on Greenfield sites. I have a group presentation next week and we are going to present these pictures and provide some analysis. The picture to the right illustrates the marketing of a sub-division project called “natural habitat”. If you live in Peterborough, or take the East Bank bus to the university, you can’t miss it. It’s just off Armour Road about 1.5 kilometres south of the university’s campus.
It is evident in the picture that the housing development features nature in some sort of way: Waterfront setting, golf and conservation lands. I wonder if the people who purchase property here actually know what conservation lands mean. A golf course is nearby the development and presumably, with more growth, another golf course will be developed in the coming years. Of course, being on the waterfront setting (next to the Otonabee River) is always an added bonus for aesthetic reasons and recreational activities. So, if you are trying to escape the city (because it is polluted, congested, dirty and so on), and if you are looking for a sense of community, then these sorts of sub-divisions might fulfill your needs.
I am not going to delve into the social exclusivity of these sub-divisions, but it is important to understand the inherent paradox. Having access to nature can give us a chance to embrace it, cherish it and ultimately protect it. We could be good environmental stewards when we move into these sub-divisions but it eventually becomes a hard battle to beat the housing market and its eager developers. Demand for these sub-divisions (in Peterborough) appears to be really good. Developers are quickly jumping on this opportunity to build more and more to meet the demand in the market.
So, residents are seeking nature and open communities yet, more and more sub-divisions are being built on these Greenfield areas which can certainly compromise the natural environment. Runoff from construction, paved surfaces and other can contaminate the water and displace native species and plants in the area. If more of these sub-divisions are built, then Big Box stores might come about to provide everyone with their basic commercial needs. Big Box stores do not encourage walking, biking and alternative modes of transport, they encourage the use of automobility which requires massive parking lots. This takes people away from “getting closer to nature”, both physically and mentally.
Developers are using nature to selling housing, they have been successful not matter how hypocritical they are. Dolores Hayden will tell us that these people move to residential developments on these Greenfield areas because they provide a quieter lifestyle, they are good for raising a family, provide a sense of community and they are close to nature. Getting closer to nature is one thing, actually looking after it is a completely different discussion.
More to come on this…
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Can Brownfield redevelopment take off?
The Wikipedia definition of Brownfield sites is "abandoned or underused industrial and commercial facilities available for re-use." In certain parts of the U.S., Brownfield sites are becoming more popular and accepted in this era of environmental sustainability. With Brownfield sites, there is massive potential for increasing density and optimizing land uses in an urban environment. By re-using land that is closer to the urban core, you can effectively increase urban density, allow people to live closer to their workplace (assuming they work downtown) and minimize urban sprawl (which is environmentally disastrous).
Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.
So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.
This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.
In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.
Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.
A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).
It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.
Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties
Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.
Places like St. Paul, Minnesota have been highly successful at showcasing the economic and environmental benefits of Brownfield redevelopment. St. Paul expects that redevelopment of the city's 1,000 acres of Brownfields will create as many as 13,000 new jobs and $25 million in annual property tax revenues. That is super progressive and innovative.
So St. Paul has been successful with implementing Brownfields, but many Canadian cities have not been. With Brownfield redevelopment for housing, the liability and regulatory barriers are significant obstacles because the greater number of end users are exposed to potential risk. More importantly however, the bigger obstacle is the stigma around Brownfields themselves. There is a lot of stigma around Brownfield sites according to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), this is because the media and developers deem Brownfield sites as contaminated and unsafe and thus highly risky.
This stigma has been perpetuated and has worried many developers from putting in redevelopment projects- those perceived risks have stifled innovation in industrial design and construction. It is really unfortunate because the media does not showcase cities that have been successful with Brownfields, St. Paul being the prime example.
In Canada, the CMHC has been talking about having public outreach programs designed to educate participants in the Brownfield redevelopment process on the real risks and benefits of the process. Alas, this has not taken off as vigorously as many sought. With a weakened economy, developers have not taken many risks with Brownfields, instead, many continue to construct massive sub-division projects which only perpetuate that problem of urban sprawl. This is happening in Peterborough and in areas close to the Greenbelt.
Brownfield redevelopment can restrain urban sprawl. It’s like an urban containment policy. Brownfield redevelopment is really expensive though. There has been a reluctance of lenders to provide financing for brownfield redevelopment projects. Unless the risk assessment process is sound, the lender may not want to provide a loan because the land might be worth nothing down the road.
A Brownfield project is a way of providing affordable housing within existing urban areas while reducing expansion (in essence, it does work towards social justice and environmental sustainability).
It can also encourage economic development through concentrating more mixed commercial and residential uses in the urban core, however, this has to be popular and attractive for developers! Developers need to understand how such redevelopment can protect and improve human health, promote stronger live-work relationships and above all, maximize economic profitability.
Sadly, one of the biggest loopholes of this process is “the inability to transfer liability when land is sold”. This has caused some large corporate landowners to mothball their properties
Key message: Brownfields can alleviate the environmental repercussions of urban sprawl. Education and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities can both help make this process a heck of a lot easier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)