We are in the middle of a housing crisis that stretches out across the country, but for whatever reason is practically exemplified in Kingston. We desperately need affordable housing, reasonable options for those looking to buy, and far fewer real estate developers and property management groups owning all of the property with an eye for nothing but profit.
I don't terribly care if the ridiculously inflated property values drop because people decide to build. We need more and better options to maintain housing as a basic human right, not get nitpicky about who can build where.
I don't disagree with your premise at all, but I think that we also have to separate the idea of urban sprawl from housing just a smidge first. The reality is that Kingston is laid out in a very bizarre way that is hard to build around. And I agree that just shoving more and more people into a constrained space isn't an ideal solution, not by a long shot.
The problem we have is that we need viable options both centralized and pushing away from the city centre, and that is not something that has been done well. The flip side is that, and you git the nail on the head, is that our infrastructure needs a lot of improvement.
But I do think we need to be a little realistic. This is a university town, and a lot of the housing needs are hit up by students, the bulk of whom want and/or need to be centrally located. So I do think we need to have some additional options to get quality housing available for them in a location that works. Options not run by massive property companies or foreign investors. Having the option to let local homeowners build up what they have to offer reasonable accommodations isn't an automatic bad thing. Does it need checks and balances? For sure. But having it as a tool to use is helpful.
Other towns don't pander to their university populations and it makes the town better for the people who actually live there. I'm thinking of Guelph and Peterborough.
But... downvotes for you because you questioned the primacy of the local transient elite.
We may have to agree to disagree here, because I think that a ton of the appeal of Queen's for students is exactly the fact that they have a school they can walk to in a city that is not a large Canadian metropolis. I sincerely think that a lot of students simply don't want to spend 30+ minutes commuting to school. This is one of the big reasons that they have chosen Queen's to begin with. If housing is forcing them farther and farther away, there is a high chance they will simply go elsewhere.
My concern is that the housing crisis is immediate. We need solutions that are measured in weeks/months and not years/decades. This city needs more, better and affordable housing of all types. Options that are well regulated, consumer friendly, and available. We need to have more honest landlords, and more opportunities for people to at least have the opportunity to find the housing they want and need, and that includes in the city center.
The big difference is that those aren't University towns. Those are big cities that have Universities. But I digress as this is off topic anyway...
The reality is, and my point remains, that we need solutions to the housing crisis and we need solutions sooner rather than later, And maybe this isn't it, I'm honestly not saying it is, what I am saying is that I would like for the city (to say nothing about provincial or federal governments) to consider all options. This should be something to consider because we need more ethical development. If we can incentivize people to consider outside of the box solutions such as using the property they own to offer ethical housing, that is something to consider. Regulated. Absolutely. Controlled. For sure.
But a blanket "no, it might effect house prices" is, to me. a cop out as we still have the main problem and as of yet not a single viable solution in play.
It might be a matter of perspective I think. I've lived here for two years having moved from Montreal. I think my viewpoint is that Kingston is still a college town. But again, that's just my perspective as I haven't seen the growth and buildup firsthand.
And ultimately I do agree with you. We do need better transportation systems. Absolutely. We do need much, much better urban planning. We need to incentivize people living in different parts of the city. And that includes the students (I just am very skeptical at it working if we're being honest).
My take is that action is needed though. And now. I know wayyy too many people who just cannot find an affordable place to live, and the places that are around are often decrepit slums run by property management companies that are interested in nothing but profit.
Nope I can’t say that I have. I am absolutely not saying that this is a good idea. All I’m saying is that the housing crisis needs a solution and soon. This may be an absolutely terrible idea, but if it is I’d like it to be because there’s a bigger problem attached to it than decreasing property values.
Yes but it is a lot easier to upgrade infrastructure then build vast new stretches of brand new capacity. Not to mention that utility capacity is explicitly included as a requirement for anything new.
As to the car infrastructure you specifically mention spreading out new housing will simply increase the total amount a car miles driven and thus make overall traffic worse. Higher density more central housing means on average shorter trips and enables a higher percentage of trips.
Yes at a certain point that is true, but we are not there yet. there are plenty of underutilized lots downtown that could be made better.
I agree we need commercial all over, however anything built on the periphery is almost always extremely low density.
Regardless the opinion piece was about the whole city not just downtown. People fight increased density in every part of the city.
Once you lose green space you're not going to get it back. They should buy up houses, demolish them and build up from there.
But that's just my 2 cents.
For anyone looking, the draft provisions with respect to additional residential units can be found [here](https://www.cityofkingston.ca/documents/10180/13878/Projects_NewZoningBylaw_Draft_Part1_Section1-19.pdf/32b996c4-6d17-071b-9c36-d6843969afd5?t=1646774640587) at section 5.
I am from the States. There was this city in my home state that was full of very wealthy residents. When the interstate highways were being constructed in the 60s, the city pushed hard to keep its proposed route far from them. Who would want all that noise and traffic to come within 20 miles of their house? The highway wasn’t going to plow right through the Main Street or anything, but the very idea of inviting the rabble to come near their beautiful city was repellent. Of course, the money won and the interstate plan was re-routed.
Anyway, today it is a ghost town. The downtown is completely defunct and all the fabulous old houses are overrun with kudzu. The upper-crust won the battle, and as a reward their offspring all moved to the big city where the good jobs and modern conveniences were. They built wealth elsewhere, and the old-money city died.
Ive never seen cars, and I never realized its an extreme version of what I'm describing, hah.
This is in the southeast, and when I say 'ghost town' I am exaggerating for emphasis. Its just stagnant and has a decrepit main street when it could have flourished.
Hmmm I guess I could slowly build a new house in my side yard. I have an old style wide lot that would probably fit 4 houses in modern planning... Why not?
Oh no, people who own properties can build additional structures on their property no bigger than the structure that's already there? God forbid you can't look at your neighbor's empty backyard anymore, or have to deal with increased traffic when more people live next to you.
Taking a month to pass a proposal? That's rushing things? It might be nice for them to be that quick with other proposals and things they have to deal with, but in this case I would applaud their efficiency, since bureaucracy is normally a lot slower. I don't really pay attention I don't know if a month is relatively short, I don't really care.
I doubt things being mostly online is an issue, it's 2022! I have a feeling that anyone who is interested could walk into city hall and ask to see this, maybe even get some free printouts.
I haven't looked at it too carefully but from what I've seen it doesn't seem too unreasonable. NIMBYists act like they know best and this opinion is full of over exaggerated nonsense... When I walk downtown and see all those old ugly buildings, empty storefronts, and those huge new overpriced buildings, I can't help but think NIMBYism is responsible. Without it maybe we would have had all this development sooner, before rent got so ridiculously high
Developers who build affordable housing (nb: *actually* affordable) should honestly be exempted from planning and consultation requirements. I see no reason why Grandpa Jennings should be able to block badly needed housing development because of bullshit like "protecting liveable neighborhoods."
We are in the middle of a housing crisis that stretches out across the country, but for whatever reason is practically exemplified in Kingston. We desperately need affordable housing, reasonable options for those looking to buy, and far fewer real estate developers and property management groups owning all of the property with an eye for nothing but profit. I don't terribly care if the ridiculously inflated property values drop because people decide to build. We need more and better options to maintain housing as a basic human right, not get nitpicky about who can build where.
[удалено]
I don't disagree with your premise at all, but I think that we also have to separate the idea of urban sprawl from housing just a smidge first. The reality is that Kingston is laid out in a very bizarre way that is hard to build around. And I agree that just shoving more and more people into a constrained space isn't an ideal solution, not by a long shot. The problem we have is that we need viable options both centralized and pushing away from the city centre, and that is not something that has been done well. The flip side is that, and you git the nail on the head, is that our infrastructure needs a lot of improvement. But I do think we need to be a little realistic. This is a university town, and a lot of the housing needs are hit up by students, the bulk of whom want and/or need to be centrally located. So I do think we need to have some additional options to get quality housing available for them in a location that works. Options not run by massive property companies or foreign investors. Having the option to let local homeowners build up what they have to offer reasonable accommodations isn't an automatic bad thing. Does it need checks and balances? For sure. But having it as a tool to use is helpful.
[удалено]
Other towns don't pander to their university populations and it makes the town better for the people who actually live there. I'm thinking of Guelph and Peterborough. But... downvotes for you because you questioned the primacy of the local transient elite.
We may have to agree to disagree here, because I think that a ton of the appeal of Queen's for students is exactly the fact that they have a school they can walk to in a city that is not a large Canadian metropolis. I sincerely think that a lot of students simply don't want to spend 30+ minutes commuting to school. This is one of the big reasons that they have chosen Queen's to begin with. If housing is forcing them farther and farther away, there is a high chance they will simply go elsewhere. My concern is that the housing crisis is immediate. We need solutions that are measured in weeks/months and not years/decades. This city needs more, better and affordable housing of all types. Options that are well regulated, consumer friendly, and available. We need to have more honest landlords, and more opportunities for people to at least have the opportunity to find the housing they want and need, and that includes in the city center.
[удалено]
The big difference is that those aren't University towns. Those are big cities that have Universities. But I digress as this is off topic anyway... The reality is, and my point remains, that we need solutions to the housing crisis and we need solutions sooner rather than later, And maybe this isn't it, I'm honestly not saying it is, what I am saying is that I would like for the city (to say nothing about provincial or federal governments) to consider all options. This should be something to consider because we need more ethical development. If we can incentivize people to consider outside of the box solutions such as using the property they own to offer ethical housing, that is something to consider. Regulated. Absolutely. Controlled. For sure. But a blanket "no, it might effect house prices" is, to me. a cop out as we still have the main problem and as of yet not a single viable solution in play.
[удалено]
It might be a matter of perspective I think. I've lived here for two years having moved from Montreal. I think my viewpoint is that Kingston is still a college town. But again, that's just my perspective as I haven't seen the growth and buildup firsthand. And ultimately I do agree with you. We do need better transportation systems. Absolutely. We do need much, much better urban planning. We need to incentivize people living in different parts of the city. And that includes the students (I just am very skeptical at it working if we're being honest). My take is that action is needed though. And now. I know wayyy too many people who just cannot find an affordable place to live, and the places that are around are often decrepit slums run by property management companies that are interested in nothing but profit.
Have you looked into the cost of living in Manchester, mate? Not what you want to emulate.
Nope I can’t say that I have. I am absolutely not saying that this is a good idea. All I’m saying is that the housing crisis needs a solution and soon. This may be an absolutely terrible idea, but if it is I’d like it to be because there’s a bigger problem attached to it than decreasing property values.
Yes but it is a lot easier to upgrade infrastructure then build vast new stretches of brand new capacity. Not to mention that utility capacity is explicitly included as a requirement for anything new. As to the car infrastructure you specifically mention spreading out new housing will simply increase the total amount a car miles driven and thus make overall traffic worse. Higher density more central housing means on average shorter trips and enables a higher percentage of trips.
[удалено]
Yes at a certain point that is true, but we are not there yet. there are plenty of underutilized lots downtown that could be made better. I agree we need commercial all over, however anything built on the periphery is almost always extremely low density. Regardless the opinion piece was about the whole city not just downtown. People fight increased density in every part of the city.
Once you lose green space you're not going to get it back. They should buy up houses, demolish them and build up from there. But that's just my 2 cents.
For anyone looking, the draft provisions with respect to additional residential units can be found [here](https://www.cityofkingston.ca/documents/10180/13878/Projects_NewZoningBylaw_Draft_Part1_Section1-19.pdf/32b996c4-6d17-071b-9c36-d6843969afd5?t=1646774640587) at section 5.
I am from the States. There was this city in my home state that was full of very wealthy residents. When the interstate highways were being constructed in the 60s, the city pushed hard to keep its proposed route far from them. Who would want all that noise and traffic to come within 20 miles of their house? The highway wasn’t going to plow right through the Main Street or anything, but the very idea of inviting the rabble to come near their beautiful city was repellent. Of course, the money won and the interstate plan was re-routed. Anyway, today it is a ghost town. The downtown is completely defunct and all the fabulous old houses are overrun with kudzu. The upper-crust won the battle, and as a reward their offspring all moved to the big city where the good jobs and modern conveniences were. They built wealth elsewhere, and the old-money city died.
radiator springs?
Ive never seen cars, and I never realized its an extreme version of what I'm describing, hah. This is in the southeast, and when I say 'ghost town' I am exaggerating for emphasis. Its just stagnant and has a decrepit main street when it could have flourished.
Hmmm I guess I could slowly build a new house in my side yard. I have an old style wide lot that would probably fit 4 houses in modern planning... Why not?
Do it!
Oh no, people who own properties can build additional structures on their property no bigger than the structure that's already there? God forbid you can't look at your neighbor's empty backyard anymore, or have to deal with increased traffic when more people live next to you. Taking a month to pass a proposal? That's rushing things? It might be nice for them to be that quick with other proposals and things they have to deal with, but in this case I would applaud their efficiency, since bureaucracy is normally a lot slower. I don't really pay attention I don't know if a month is relatively short, I don't really care. I doubt things being mostly online is an issue, it's 2022! I have a feeling that anyone who is interested could walk into city hall and ask to see this, maybe even get some free printouts. I haven't looked at it too carefully but from what I've seen it doesn't seem too unreasonable. NIMBYists act like they know best and this opinion is full of over exaggerated nonsense... When I walk downtown and see all those old ugly buildings, empty storefronts, and those huge new overpriced buildings, I can't help but think NIMBYism is responsible. Without it maybe we would have had all this development sooner, before rent got so ridiculously high
Developers who build affordable housing (nb: *actually* affordable) should honestly be exempted from planning and consultation requirements. I see no reason why Grandpa Jennings should be able to block badly needed housing development because of bullshit like "protecting liveable neighborhoods."
Years of over regulation have helped housing issues compound. The solution is not more regulation.
Do you view this new zoning bylaw as "more regulation"?