Uncategorized – Page 23

The Death of the Single-Family Home on a Quarter-Acre Lot

February 3. 2023

The house on a quarter-acre lot, which has been the Canadian dream, is under vicious attack. The quarter-acre lot in planning terms is the R1 zone, which occupies over half of the land of Canadian cities. In Ottawa, the R1 zone occupies over 50% of the land; in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver, it is over 60%, while in Montreal it is 45%.

But the R1 zone is “exclusionary” cry social advocates, citing the shortage and unaffordability of housing, to absorb people arriving in Canada’s cities from the hinterland, and from abroad. R1 is the culprit and therefore, it must be eliminated to permit higher densities, putting two and three dwellings on the quarter-acre lot.

But how can the R1 zone be “exclusionary” when more than half of the land used in cities is zoned R1? To me, the word exclusionary conjures up images of elite golf clubs; high-end tennis clubs, and similar facilities with entrance requirements that a minority of people possess. And by a minority, we usually talk about the “top” five percent or even the top one percent of people.

In 2016, fifty-three percent of dwellings were single-family detached homes in the R1 zone in Canada, and I would not call this metric exclusionary. The rest of the Canadians live in apartments and condominiums.

I realize municipalities could use zoning for excluding certain groups of people by specifying minimum lot and house sizes, which could make purchasing a house unaffordable for some people. It happened to blacks in parts of the United States (until it became illegal to do so), but I have seen nothing in Canada to illustrate that zoning has been used to exclude a specific group of people from a community.

I studied city planning at the University of North Carolina where Professor Chapin wrote and taught the classic and long-used textbook “Urban Land Use Planning”. According to him, zoning has been a tool to regulate development, generated by employment growth, creating a need for housing, schools, and commercial development.

We have been fortunate in Canada to date, being able to expand the urban boundaries of our metropolitan areas, to provide for growth and reasonably priced housing. Now, suddenly, we find that environmental concerns, greenbelts, and natural boundaries like water and mountains constrict some of our cities concurrent with our radically exploding immigration intake, creating an unprecedented demand for housing.

The government solution to the housing crisis is to densify our communities, and one approach is to permit the doubling or tripling of dwellings that occupy half the land of our cities. And that is the R1 zone. Conclusion: it has to be done away with. Ontario recently introduced legislation to triple the population of the R1 zone by allowing three dwellings on the quarter-acre lot instead of one, starting in the summer of 2023.

I think that by doing so, we’ll destroy some of our attractive and historical districts. Allowing three dwellings where there is one now will lead to a haphazard and unsightly streetscape. Instead of the usual one car per dwelling, we’ll have four of five cars on the same piece of land and lacking parking space on the quarter-acre lot, on the streets. Traffic will increase on roads designed for low-density residential districts. Schools will have to be renovated to serve more children on limited sites.

So, you ask, what is the solution for the burgeoning demand for additional housing? I think that we’ll have to develop some new towns and/or attract our future development into peripheral small towns around our metropolitan areas.

Failing that approach, I suggest that densification in our single-family communities should be allowed gradually in places where the installed infrastructure permits additional development, or until after governments build the required infrastructure.

But the demise of the single-family dwelling on a quarter-acre lot has already started. In my community, doubles have replaced single-family units. In one situation, someone purchased two lots, demolished the homes on the land, and constructed three units. These small-scale redevelopments, to date, have bordered our community, but I foresee some enterprising homeowners in the middle of our community replacing their dwellings with a duplex or triplex, creating increased traffic and destroying the family-oriented nature of the community.

Experience with “Public Engagement” in the City of Ottawa

January 21, 2023

My local City Councilor invited me to a “public engagement” meeting on a rezoning application for a development proposal in my neighborhood. The meeting, held by zoom, was scheduled for 7:00-8:30 pm. The purpose of the meeting, we had been told, was to present and provide feedback on changes that had been made to the original proposal by the developer presented at our first meeting a few months earlier and gain public input. The original proposal was for two 25 and one 28-story towers sitting on a six-story podium at the intersection of two arterial roads. Single-family, mostly bungalows, surround the site on three sides.

But, right at the beginning of the meeting, the moderator reduced the meeting to an exchange of information, informing us that the only questions from the audience (whom he estimated to be around 80) would be by writing them in a Question and Answer Chat room for a response after all the presentations. In the meantime, the moderator limited us to listening only, a lesser event than discussing the merits of the proposal.

Then he insulted the audience by asking them to behave civilly and respectfully, conjuring up the image of the rough Liverpool waterfront pub in the 19^th century. Mr. Moderator, we are polite Canadians; we are courteous and mostly low-keyed. We do not need a lecture from you on how to behave. At any rate, the audience was muted for the entire evening – so what opportunity would there have even been to be loud and rowdy? I found these actions – the lecture and the muting – to be disrespectful to the audience, who are all ratepayers and have a right to be heard.

The session began with my Councilor, who gave his views on the development and on the City of Ottawa’s planning goal for densification to provide for future population growth. It continued with presentations by the planner, architect, engineer, Ottawa City Planner, and the developer. These presentations took up over an hour of the allotted meeting time, leaving precious little time for the hundred-plus comments that accumulated on the “chat line” and some in the Q&A column during the zoom call. So, with limited time available for the audience to engage in the discussion, and with the audience all muted, the moderator summarized what he believed to be related questions from the ‘chat line” and Q&A column, and referred them to the panelists for a response. The members of the audience had no opportunity to express their views in their own words and address the proponents directly.

Following the earlier “public engagement” session, the new proposal reflected some of the public’s comments from that earlier meeting; reduced the podium from six to four levels to blend better with the surroundings, but increased the height of the buildings to two 28-story and one 32-story building, adding over one hundred units, with the total project to accommodate 998 units. The new height proposed is over 5 times what is currently permitted in the zoning code.

With no proper opportunity to engage with the proponents, this process was not engaging the public by any stretch of the imagination. Listening for over an hour to an information dump and being required to submit questions in writing over zoom, not knowing if the question will be answered or allowing any opportunity for follows-clarifications is certainly not public engagement. People want to express their thoughts in their own words, address their comments to specific individuals and not have their comments lumped together with other comments and interpreted by a moderator.

I am both an architect and a city planner by training and so understood most of the “professional” presentations – but I wonder how many did without an opportunity to seek clarification?

As a city planner, I both participated in and conducted “public engagement” in both Canada and the United States, at various levels, including municipal. The essence of these meetings was to present the proposal in a few minutes to allow maximum time for audience questioning and participation. At least three-quarters of the time was devoted to public input. This meeting was the opposite: three-quarters of the time was spent on describing the proposal and the rest by the moderator interpreting the public comments.

I give credit to the Councilor and the city to organize this “public engagement” zoom meeting. It is desirable and useful to inform the neighborhood people and canvas the residents for their comments; they will have to live with the development. But I question the usefulness of this session: was there anything in that meeting that would help people come to an amicable resolution? To me, this exercise was more like checking the box for “public engagement”.

This was a weird zoom meeting in that only the panelists – the Councilors, consultants, developer, and the City of Ottawa official – were shown on the screen while people like me were back in our homes staring at our computer screens and listening. We did not see who else was listening. I always see all zoom participants in other such meetings I have joined. It was one-way communication; we never had a live word. The moderator combined and interpreted the questions that we put on the “chat” line. I found it very dissatisfying.

My impression is that the city will probably process this rezoning application with some minor tinkering with the height of the towers, landscaping, and other issues but will not materially change it, such as, for example, bringing it into conformance with the current zoning envelope. Having checked off the “public engagement” box, the city has not really shown an interest in finding out what the public thinks about how this proposal could be made into a quality project consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the larger surroundings. (For example, how about a medical office complex in proximity to the proposed huge hospital development just north on Fisher Avenue)? The developers appear to have their way in this city; they propose, and the city massages the proposal for approval. Just my opinion.

The Challenge of Tipping at the Taj Mahal and Other UNESCO World Heritage Sites

January 16, 2023

We caught an early Indian Railways train in Delhi to get to the Taj Mahal in Agra. There was a substantial breakfast served by a dapper, uniformed porter on the two-hour train ride. We joined a long line of people waiting for the opening when we arrived at the Taj at 7:00 am. Inside, several official guides competed for our attention.

One guide, a small man with a starched white shirt and tie and formal manner, offered to show me where to take the best photo shots, including where the shots in the James Bond movie Octopussy were taken. Believing he was a government employee on the Taj grounds, I thought his services were free.

He took me on an extensive tour that lasted more than half an hour. He knew the story of the Taj. And he showed me a glorious spot to take a picture of the Taj, from an arcade looking at the front of the Taj, framed by an arch above. It is a novel snapshot that shows the Taj with the minarets at the four corners. It was early in the morning, and the white marble building showed unforgettable translucency in the rising sun.

I thought that even though he was a government employee, I should at least offer him a tip for his tour and offered as much as the entrance fee. He asked me what it was for. I said I wanted to show my appreciation for his time with a tip.

He stared at me in astonishment, then laughed and explained that I did not realize what an expert story he shared with me and that at least ten times what I offered would be a minimum to pay for his expertise. His gall and arrogance astonished me. I was going to negotiate but got my back up at hearing what I thought was an outrageous demand. I told him he had never said that he expected remuneration and that if I had been aware that he would expect so much money, I would have refused his offer for the tour. And I started walking away.

He called after me and negotiated to double my original offer. I chalked up this encounter as an experience in traveling at world-famous tourist sites.

This incident reminded me of an episode we had in Jaresh, Egypt, where we paid for a guided tour. The guide was excellent, and I offered what I thought was a generous tip, which he pooh-poohed and told me to give it to the paperboy and explained in a loud voice that he was worth ten times as much. I finally just started walking away from him, leaving an amount equal to the entrance fee that the guide then threw to the boy selling trinkets at the gate.

From these two experiences, I gathered that, as an initial gambit, the guides ask ten times what you offer, but are happy to accept less than half the suggested tip. I found tipping an unpleasant task with educated and experienced guides.

Traveling in Morocco (Fez) and Egypt (Karnak), the distinguished-looking guides, those with a suit and a tie, had a much more sophisticated approach to earning money. These guides took us on tours that ended up in a gift store, where they expected us to buy artifacts in the store made by local artisans. I noticed that when we left; the guides had a few words with the owners of the stores, and my strong suspicion was that the guides received a kickback, a percentage of the amount we spent in the store.

Some of these guides are professional historians and provide excellent guided tours. But they are also aggressive in securing huge tips by shaming the Westerners, who are often seduced by suave guides with a suit and a tie on, university professors moonlighting as tour leaders.

I found group tours are better, in that they include tips in the price, although the guides always expect additional money.

Regardless of such annoyances, the Taj is a great place to visit. It is a unique building that has an eerie, light feeling in the sun and is surrounded by a well-maintained garden. When leaving, the guards at the gate told us that there are always lots of tourists there.

Towards Solving the Housing Affordability Gap in Ottawa: The Vacant Unit Tax

January 15, 2023

Can a family afford to buy a house in Ottawa? The average family income in Ottawa is $80,000. If they had the money for a 20% down payment for an average Ottawa home costing $620,000, the monthly mortgage cost would be over $2,000. In addition, they would have to pay for utilities, food, and other living costs. The other option, next to buying, would be to rent a house or an apartment, and the family with two children would pay a $2,500 monthly rental cost (a house or a 3-bedroom apartment).

I think there is an affordability gap in Ottawa, or, there is a shortage of housing. Same thing. Economics teaches us that if we increase the supply of a product, it may decrease its price. Home builders built ten thousand dwellings in Ottawa in 2022, a record, but not enough to satisfy demand. Are there other options to increase the supply of housing?

The City of Ottawa thought of another way to increase the supply of housing and introduced a “vacant unit tax” (VUT) on January 1, 2023. There are 20,000 vacant units in Ottawa, five percent of the housing stock. Carrying the higher cost of an investment property may motivate owners and investors to rent or sell their vacant units, increasing the housing supply, and reducing its cost.

The tax is one percent of the assessed value of the property if it is vacant for over six months of the year. Although some people with deep pockets may pay the tax, others would sell or rent it out, perhaps to family members to avoid paying the tax.

How will the City of Ottawa identify vacant units? Following examples in Toronto and Vancouver, with similar taxes for vacant investment properties, Ottawa issued a form letter to all property owners asking them to declare whether their property is their prime residence, rented or vacant. We must submit the declaration by the middle of March. Failing that, the tax is added to the property tax the following year.

What happens if owners claim they rent the property, but it is vacant? How will Ottawa follow up and audit, and enforce the VUT? Would the City check water, gas, and electrical consumption for the dwellings? The City has not disclosed how they intend to audit and enforce its new tax; it could be an arduous process.

The City projects to raise seven million dollars a year from the VUT, which translates into over 1,100 dwellings subject to the new tax ($7 million is one percent of the assessed value of the vacant homes averaging $620,000).

It appears the City is inconveniencing 100 percent of property owners by requiring a declaration to increase the supply of housing by 0.3 percent (1100 units added to the existing 380,000 occupied units). Is it worth inconveniencing the people of Ottawa for such a small gain? Is this just a tax grab, impacting middle-class people?

What I find more objectionable is the creeping regulations limiting our freedom; why could I not have two homes and have one empty without being taxed for it? For example, I could use one as my primary residence and the other as an office or a studio or the guesthouse for visiting family. Or I could live downtown, for the winter, to enjoy the cultural facilities there and move to an ex-urban area for the summer, where I could have a large lot with my vegetable garden. Would this tax encourage families to put one house in the husband’s name and the other in the wife’s name? And both could claim their houses as primary residences while living in one? What is wrong with a two-primary-home existence?

And creeping regulations could go further: following up on the logic of the VUT, Ottawa may prescribe additional living standards. For example, you may be eligible for five hundred square feet of living space per person or one bedroom per person. And come up with the LUT (large-home unit tax). If they can regulate that my dwelling must be occupied, what is stopping them from deciding how much space I am entitled to?

Reflecting on the increasing regulatory power of the City, I thought of the large house we and my neighbors occupy. Yes, my street has large homes with four or more bedrooms and multiple bathrooms occupied by two people; the children are gone but the owners are comfortable in their long-term homes, with no intention of moving or downsizing.

I was in my large basement office filling out the VUT form, thinking that the VUT may not be the efficient answer to the housing affordability gap. Mortgage rates, lack of skilled labor to build houses, and low wages may be more crucial factors to tackle before trying to convert a few vacant homes into occupied ones. Just my opinion.

2022: from Covid Lockdowns to Travel Freedom

January 1, 2023

When we crossed the border to Canada from the United States, driving north on Interstate 81, I asked the Canadian border guard: “no ArriveCan?”. He just laughed and let us through with a quick look at our passports. A few months ago we had to fill out the ArriveCan forms to cross the border and even with a correctly filled out form, which was a challenge to do, it still took a substantial amount of time to get through. And we had to have proof of vaccination and a negative Covid test taken within a day of arriving in Canada.

We have traveled to the US five times in 2022 and this trip was our sixth, to visit family for Xmas.

We used the ArriveCan form until the Canadian Government abandoned its use, partially because of public opposition to its use, and partially because it was a bureaucratic nightmare to administer it. And the Government also ditched the required vaccinations, and a negative Covid test, reflecting the low rate of Covid infections. Both barriers disappeared by the second half of 2022.

But it was not the ArriveCan and Covid requirements that stuck in my mind as a significant feature of 2022; it was the freedom to travel and the ease with which we could travel in late 2022. Traveling gives you the freedom to see different venues, meet people and, of course, visit family.

When the barriers disappeared, we were free to travel again.

Why is travel such an important and motivating activity for me? I found that if you stay home and follow your daily routine; which includes taking the garbage out, paying bills, and shoveling snow, you lose the excitement of living. Of discovering new ideas, fresh places, and meeting people, which keep your mind alert and body in physical shape.

By March 2022, we got fed up with being isolated in Ottawa and decided on the spur of the moment to visit family in North Carolina. So, we packed a suitcase and drove south. We followed up with a trip to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in May, where we attended our grandson’s high school graduation. It was a lively experience in the basketball arena at Louisiana State University, with hooting parents celebrating their children’s graduation.

In July, we took our granddaughter back home to Durham, North Carolina, after her soccer camp at the University of Ottawa. End of August we spent a week in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. with my brother-in-law and his family. And, of course, we spent Thanksgiving and Xmas with family in North Carolina.

Our Honda CRV accumulated enormous mileage this year, compared to 2021, when we filled the car with gas maybe once every two months.

But our travel this year has been much more than seeing family; we did sightseeing and learned about the Moravians’ arrival in North Carolina. and their historical settlement in Salem; hiked in West Virginia. along abandoned rail lines that served coal mining and learned about mining history. Also enjoyed and walked in a gigantic park in Clemmons, North Carolina, donated to the community by the Reynolds family of tobacco fame. A highlight of one of our trips was attending a Baptist church service – a first for me – in Clemmons. I found these “discovery” trips and experiences stimulating compared to my usual routine at home, which includes taking the garbage out, paying bills, and shoveling snow.

No question in my mind that the trips and the ease with which we took these trips were the highlights of 2022 for me.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: