Get live statistics and analysis of Patrick Condon's profile on X / Twitter

The problem in a nutshell. Upzoning with no requirement for social benefit is a god send for land speculators, not renters or first time buyers. From IMCL conference - Newport RI.

Not exactly a mea culpa. But close. Conclusion to current research article. For decades, I and others have championed the cause of mixed-use, mixed-income, and diverse housing types as the cornerstone of sustainable and equitable urban design. I believed, as many of us did, that such strategies would lead us to a brighter, more affordable future. Yet, after years of empirical observation and personal involvement in projects such as the East Clayton Sustainable Community in Surrey, B.C., I find myself frustrated. Frustrated that our ambitions for densification, carried out more boldly in the Vancouver region than perhaps anywhere else in North America, did not yield the affordable housing we had hoped for. In fact, the opposite occurred. Consider Vancouver—a city that has tripled its housing units within its pre-WWII footprint. No other centre city in North America comes close. Toronto, for instance, has increased housing by 120% within its pre-war limits, and American cities like San Francisco and New York have achieved far less, around 30%. Yet, despite these aggressive efforts, Vancouver's housing prices, relative to median household incomes, are now the highest on this continent. To be sure, this infill development brought many benefits—higher transit use, more commercial services and schools within walking distance, and a walkability that outshines most North American cities. But affordability, sadly, was not among them. Now, let me be clear: this study does not claim that adding housing will never lower prices. But in the case of Vancouver, where planners and citizens in good faith welcomed new density into every corner of the city, we were left profoundly disappointed by our failure. I leave it to others to explain how such an anomaly can be reconciled without upending the very theory of supply and demand for housing.

Here is the thing. All the value emenating from productivity increases was not expended on goods and services (it didnt go to wage earners), but into asset wealth growth. The biggest asset class, globally, is now (you guessed it) urban land.

My comments to council on the Broadway plan. Patrick M. Condon Dec 11, 2024 Good evening, and thank you for listening. The Broadway Plan raises many issues, but for me, they all center on affordability. I will focus my remarks on just this crucial topic. In recent years, both the city and the province have insisted on a simple solution to the housing crisis: build more housing, and prices will go down. They frame it as a simple problem of supply and demand. But let’s examine the data to see if it’s really that simple. The analysis I’m sharing compares growth in housing units, population, and average home prices since 1960. It focuses on “infill development”—housing added within existing neighborhoods which is what the Broadway plan is all about. When it comes to adding density, Vancouver stands out. Over the past 60 years, the city has increased its housing stock by nearly 200%, almost tripling the number of homes. No other North American city has matched this. For comparison, New York and San Francisco increased housing supply by about only 35%, and many U.S. cities lost housing and population during this period. At first glance, this might seem like a success. But here’s the hard truth: despite tripling its housing stock, Vancouver remains the least affordable city in North America. Adding more homes hasn’t made the city affordable. The problem is land price inflation. In Vancouver, land is often worth ten times more than the building on it. The city’s focus on luxury towers has produced a tsunami of unearned income for land speculators while failing to deliver affordability for renters or owners. So, what’s the solution? First, require at least 50% of housing in major developments be non-market housing—like co-ops or nonprofit housing. This reduces land speculation by cutting the price developers can pay for land. Second, governments and non-profits must lead in building housing that stays affordable for the long term. Finally, rethink the presumption that only towers are viable in our marketplace. Many other more sustainable forms are viable should the city simply zone for them The solution isn’t just building more housing—it’s building the right kind of housing and tackling land price inflation head-on. Let’s act boldly to prioritize the city residents we need over unearned land profits for speculators. Thank you.

Housing “supply” bumper sticker for the day: The housing market will not build in places where home prices are going down. Duh.

Mark your calendar for The rethinking housing crisis discussion. ( or rethining!) Sponsored by the city club of New York. Listen especially to Cameron Murray. He’s got the goods on the housing issue from a real estate economics standpoint.

Not exactly a mea culpa. But close. Conclusion to current research article. For decades, I and others have championed the cause of mixed-use, mixed-income, and diverse housing types as the cornerstone of sustainable and equitable urban design. I believed, as many of us did, that such strategies would lead us to a brighter, more affordable future. Yet, after years of empirical observation and personal involvement in projects such as the East Clayton Sustainable Community in Surrey, B.C., I find myself frustrated. Frustrated that our ambitions for densification, carried out more boldly in the Vancouver region than perhaps anywhere else in North America, did not yield the affordable housing we had hoped for. In fact, the opposite occurred. Consider Vancouver—a city that has tripled its housing units within its pre-WWII footprint. No other centre city in North America comes close. Toronto, for instance, has increased housing by 120% within its pre-war limits, and American cities like San Francisco and New York have achieved far less, around 30%. Yet, despite these aggressive efforts, Vancouver's housing prices, relative to median household incomes, are now the highest on this continent. To be sure, this infill development brought many benefits—higher transit use, more commercial services and schools within walking distance, and a walkability that outshines most North American cities. But affordability, sadly, was not among them. Now, let me be clear: this study does not claim that adding housing will never lower prices. But in the case of Vancouver, where planners and citizens in good faith welcomed new density into every corner of the city, we were left profoundly disappointed by our failure. I leave it to others to explain how such an anomaly can be reconciled without upending the very theory of supply and demand for housing.

The problem in a nutshell. Upzoning with no requirement for social benefit is a god send for land speculators, not renters or first time buyers. From IMCL conference - Newport RI.

Housing “supply” bumper sticker for the day: The housing market will not build in places where home prices are going down. Duh.

Here is the thing. All the value emenating from productivity increases was not expended on goods and services (it didnt go to wage earners), but into asset wealth growth. The biggest asset class, globally, is now (you guessed it) urban land.

My comments to council on the Broadway plan. Patrick M. Condon Dec 11, 2024 Good evening, and thank you for listening. The Broadway Plan raises many issues, but for me, they all center on affordability. I will focus my remarks on just this crucial topic. In recent years, both the city and the province have insisted on a simple solution to the housing crisis: build more housing, and prices will go down. They frame it as a simple problem of supply and demand. But let’s examine the data to see if it’s really that simple. The analysis I’m sharing compares growth in housing units, population, and average home prices since 1960. It focuses on “infill development”—housing added within existing neighborhoods which is what the Broadway plan is all about. When it comes to adding density, Vancouver stands out. Over the past 60 years, the city has increased its housing stock by nearly 200%, almost tripling the number of homes. No other North American city has matched this. For comparison, New York and San Francisco increased housing supply by about only 35%, and many U.S. cities lost housing and population during this period. At first glance, this might seem like a success. But here’s the hard truth: despite tripling its housing stock, Vancouver remains the least affordable city in North America. Adding more homes hasn’t made the city affordable. The problem is land price inflation. In Vancouver, land is often worth ten times more than the building on it. The city’s focus on luxury towers has produced a tsunami of unearned income for land speculators while failing to deliver affordability for renters or owners. So, what’s the solution? First, require at least 50% of housing in major developments be non-market housing—like co-ops or nonprofit housing. This reduces land speculation by cutting the price developers can pay for land. Second, governments and non-profits must lead in building housing that stays affordable for the long term. Finally, rethink the presumption that only towers are viable in our marketplace. Many other more sustainable forms are viable should the city simply zone for them The solution isn’t just building more housing—it’s building the right kind of housing and tackling land price inflation head-on. Let’s act boldly to prioritize the city residents we need over unearned land profits for speculators. Thank you.

Mark your calendar for The rethinking housing crisis discussion. ( or rethining!) Sponsored by the city club of New York. Listen especially to Cameron Murray. He’s got the goods on the housing issue from a real estate economics standpoint.