7. DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Transcription

1 7. DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND

2 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND 7.1 Permanent Housing Potential Urban Housing Supply by Stage of Development Table 7-1 summarizes potential urban 1 housing supply largely within plans of subdivision or condominium for each of the Urban Centres of Muskoka District, by stage of planning approval (i.e. registered but not built, draft approved and applications under review). Also identified are potential housing units on designated, developable, vacant lands within municipal urban boundaries, as of May, 2007 by Urban Centre 2. As summarized in Table 7-1, 1,007 housings units or 5% of the District s total potential housing supply is registered but not built, 2,667 housing units (12%) are draft approved, and plans for 909 potential housing units (4%) have been received and are under review. The remaining 16,871 potential housing units, or 79% of the District s total potential urban housing supply, have been identified as future residential on developable vacant lands 3 within designated municipal urban boundaries. Appendix F provides further details with respect to the location of housing supply by development/approval status. Maps 7-1 through 7-9 geographically illustrate the location of potential housing by development approval status. 1 As identified within the urban boundary (see Maps 7-1 through 7-9). 2 More recent housing supply data was used for Georgian Bay due to significant changes to one of the Township s larger development applications. 3 Vacant lands inventory provided by the Muskoka District Planning Department

3 7-2 TABLE 7-1 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL UNITS BY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT Density Type Stage of Development Low 1 Medium 2 High 3 Total Registered Not Built 1, ,007 % Breakdown by type 100% 0% 0% 100% % of Total 6% 0% 0% 5% Draft Plan Approved 1, ,667 % Breakdown by type 61% 36% 4% 100% % of Total 10% 26% 6% 12% Applications Under Review % Breakdown by type 66% 34% 0% 100% % of Total 4% 8% 0% 4% Potential Units (on vacant lands)⁴ 12,901 2,435 1,535 16,871 % Breakdown by type 76% 14% 9% 100% % of Total 80% 66% 94% 79% Total 16,119 3,697 1,638 21,454 % Breakdown 75% 17% 8% 100% Source: District of Muskoka, Planning Department, May Singles and Semis 2. Townhouse, apartments in duplexes 3. Triplexes and apartments 4. Vacant Lands Identified by the District of Muskoka, steps taken to define the residential potential can be found on Table F-7 and F-8. Note: Figures may not add precisely due to rounding.

4 S (Cutter's Quest Meadows) 44T89002 (Clearbrook) Map 7-1 S (Covered Bridge) S (Hammel Estates) S (Inveraray Highlands) Development Summary (approval status) Bracebridge Urban Centre Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

5 Map 7-2 S (Middleton) Development Summary (approval status) Registered Not Built Georgian Bay (Mactier) Muskoka District Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

6 Map 7-3 C (Edgewater Muskoka) S (Amonsen) S (Boardwalk of Port Severn) S (Port Severn Village) S (Port Severn Village) Development Summary (approval status) Georgian Bay (Port Severn) Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

7 Map 7-4 S (Beechwood) S (Muskoka Ridge) S (Pine Street) 44T (Kingbrook) 44T (Gateway) 44T (Brickbay Inc) C (Moonlight Bay) C (Muskoka Wharf Phase II) S (Muskoka Bay) S (Pineridge) Development Summary (approval status) Gravenhurst Urban Centre Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

8 Map T (Deerhurst Highlands) Development Summary (approval status) Hidden Valley Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

9 44T (Settler's Ridge) S (Huntsville Downs) S (Muskoka Meadows) Map T (Land in Progress) C (Fairyview Developments) C (Ross) 44T (Hunter's Bay Estates) 44T (Ralna Parent Corp) S (Algonquin Heights) 44T (Square "B" Properties) S (Riley) 44T (Huntsville Highlands) Development Summary (approval status) Huntsville Urban Centre Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

10 Map 7-7 Development Summary (approval status) Lake of Bays (Baysville) Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

11 Map 7-8 Development Summary (approval status) Muskoka Lakes (Bala) Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

12 Map T (Port of Call) Development Summary (approval status) Muskoka Lakes (Port Carling) Muskoka District Registered Not Built Application Received Draft Approved Potential Residential Development Urban Boundary

13 Potential Permanent Housing Supply By Urban Centre Table 7-2 summarizes potential urban (municipally-serviced/serviceable) housing supply within the District of Muskoka by Urban Centre and by density type (i.e. singles and semi-detached, townhouses, and apartment units). As summarized in Table 7-2, a total of 21,454 potential housing units have been identified within the District of Muskoka as of May, In terms of geographic location, the Urban Centres of of Bracebridge and Huntsville have the largest share of supply (63%). The following is the percentage of supply identified for each area: Bracebridge (Urban Area) 37% Georgian Bay (Mactier, Port Severn) 13% Gravenhurst (Urban Centre) 16% Huntsville (Urban Centre) 26% Lake of Bays (Baysville) 4% Muskoka Lakes (Bala, Port Carling) 4% Muskoka District 100% With respect to housing unit density type, approximately 75% of all potential urban housing supply within the District has been identified as low-density (i.e. single and/or semi-detached units), while 17% has been identified as medium-density (i.e. townhouses) and the remaining 8% is high-density (apartments). Bracebridge has by far the greatest number of potential medium- and high-density units at 53% and 74% of the supply, respectively. 1 More recent housing supply data was used for Georgian Bay due to significant changes to one of the Townships larger development applications.

14 7-13 TABLE 7-2 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL URBAN HOUSING UNITS BY DENSITY TYPE Density Type Municipality Low 1 Medium 2 High 3 Total BRACEBRIDGE 4,689 1,965 1,217 7,871 % Breakdown by type 60% 25% 15% 100% % of Total 29% 53% 74% 37% GEORGIAN BAY 2, ,733 % Breakdown by type 89% 11% 0% 100% % of Total 15% 8% 0% 13% GRAVENHURST 2, ,351 % Breakdown by type 64% 25% 11% 100% % of Total 13% 23% 22% 16% HUNTSVILLE 5, ,633 % Breakdown by type 90% 9% 1% 100% % of Total 32% 13% 4% 26% LAKE OF BAYS % Breakdown by type 100% 0% 0% 100% % of Total 6% 0% 0% 4% MUSKOKA LAKES % Breakdown by type 91% 9% 0% 100% % of Total 5% 2% 0% 4% Total 16,119 3,697 1,638 21,454 % Breakdown by type 75% 17% 8% 100% Source: District of Muskoka, Planning Department, May Singles and Semis 2. Townhouse, apartments in duplexes 3. Triplexes and apartments 4. Vacant Lands Identified by the District of Muskoka, steps taken to define the residential potential can be found on Table F-7 and F-8. Note: Figures may not add precisely due to rounding.

15 Requirements of Provincial Policy Statement Table 7-3 summarizes the total potential housing supply in the District of Muskoka by Urban Centres as per the housing requirement of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). As identified in Chapter 5 (policy context), Section of the 2005 PPS states that in order to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market areas, planning authorities shall: a) maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development; and b) maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draftapproved and registered plans. Forecast housing demand is based on a range of permanent housing units annually, less conversions of seasonal units to permanent housing, as discussed in Chapter 4. In summary, the District more than meets the requirements of the PPS, with respect to both registered/draft-approved and designated residential lands. In fact, a significant over-supply of designated residential lands has been identified overall for Muskoka District s Urban Centres. Phase 2 of this study will provide a more detailed examination of Muskoka s land need requirements for each Urban Centre of Muskoka District based on forecast long-term housing demand. Phase 2 will also provide an examination of residential intensification potential by Urban Centre.

16 7-15 TABLE 7-3 HOUSING AND RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2005 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT PPS Requirement Current Supply (Units) Average Annual Absorption (Units/Year) 1 Conversions of Seasonal to Permanent Average Annual Absorption less Conversions (Units/Year) Years of Supply Three Year Supply of Registered and Draft Approved Units 10 Year Supply of Designated Residential Lands 3, , Annual permanent housing forecast is based on a 5- and 10-year average, respectively (refer to Table 4-2 Base Growth Scenario). As per discussions with District and municipal staff, realtors and developers, a portion of the potential housing supply identified in the above table may be taken up by seasonal residents as second homes. As identified in Chapter 3, the classification of units between permanent and seasonal owners is difficult to quantify since there are no qualities that can definitively distinguish these two forms of housing. For the purposes of this study, all municipally serviced or serviceable housing units in the development approvals process and housing potential on vacant urban lands are deemed for permanent use, while waterfront lots and a portion of resort developments are classified as seasonal. 7.2 Seasonal Housing Seasonal Housing Supply Analysis by District staff has identified the total number of existing vacant waterfront lots at 4, In addition to the existing vacant lots, District staff has identified a number of waterfront 1 A total of 4,429 existing vacant lots with more than 100 ft. of waterfront frontage (therefore likely developable) has been identified by the District of Muskoka. An additional 1,470 vacant lots do not have frontage information. Assuming 25% of these lots are developable, this would generate an additional 367 lots, totaling 4,796 vacant developable lots. (Source: District of Muskoka, November, 2007)

17 7-16 lots that have the potential for further lot creation (severance). Table 7-4 identifies lots by water frontage and road access. The number of waterfront lots with large frontages and road access suggest there is a substantial lot creation potential. TABLE 7-4 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA WATERFRONT LOTS AND ROAD ACCESS Waterfront Frontage # total lots # total lots with road access >2000 ft ft ft ft ft. 23,958 18,865 Unknown 1, While there may be a potentially significant number of additional vacant waterfront lots, it is important to recognize that the supply of waterfront properties is finite, and as this supply builds out it will directly affect the nature and rate of seasonal population growth throughout the District. Table 7-5 identifies the total number of potential resort units currently approved for the District of Muskoka. Approximately 2,034 seasonal residential units are also planned as components of the resort communities of Minett, Muskoka Beach and Hidden Valley. These resort-related residential units form part of the seasonal population forecast, while commercial resort units influence the non-residential growth forecast. The approximate 2,034 seasonal, resort-related units have been added to the waterfront supply, creating a total seasonal build-out supply of 6,830 units (4, ,034). It is also recognized that some waterfront lots, and to a lesser likelihood, the resort-related units could become used on a permanent basis. TABLE 7-5 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA SUMMARY OF APPROVED MAJOR RESORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Number of Units Resort-Related Seasonal Residential Units 2,034 Source: Muskoka District, Planning Department, July, 2007.

18 Summary of Seasonal Housing Demand vs. Supply As per Chapter 4 of this report, the average annual absorption of seasonal housing is 235 units per year (base case). It should be noted that seasonal housing absorption does not directly translate into the annual growth of total seasonal units, due to the conversion of existing seasonal units into permanent households. As such, over the next 25 years, the annual average growth of seasonal units is forecast at 157 per year, while the annual number of new seasonal units absorbed is 235, assuming an average of 78 conversions per year. Based on a potential supply of 4,796 waterfront lots, plus 2,034 resort-related seasonal residential units, the District can accommodate approximately 29 years of additional seasonal development. TABLE 7-6 DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA SEASONAL HOUSING SUPPLY VS. DEMAND Type of Housing Supply Annual Demand* Years Supply Seasonal 4,796 Resort-related 2,034 Residential Units Total 6, *Based on a 25-year forecast of average annual units under the base forecast scenario. Annual demand between seasonal and resort-related residential units has not been provided. 7.3 Overview of Housing Markets in Muskoka The following is a brief description of the housing sub-markets in Muskoka District within the broader context of permanent and seasonal housing, as identified in sections 7.1 and 7.2. In several cases, these housing sub-markets cross over the broader categories of permanent and seasonal as defined in this study.

19 Permanent Housing Empty Nesters and Seniors Housing (55+ Population) Given the diversity of the 55+ population with respect to age, health, mobility, income and housing preferences, etc., future housing demands in Muskoka within this broad demographic group are anticipated to vary considerably. Based on our review of forecast demographic and economic conditions for Muskoka District, two broad, but distinct, housing markets are emerging within this age group, including: 1. Active Adults/Young Seniors (55-74 Years of Age) Key characteristics include: Typically empty-nesters and younger seniors (generally within the 55 to 74 age group); Higher average disposable income (as compared to population years of age); Housing preferences towards specific residential communities, which are often geared to adult lifestyle or recreational development; Housing demand from within this demographic/market group will be generated from both existing and new residents (i.e. in-migration); The greatest housing impact is anticipated to occur over the short- to medium-term (i.e. next 5 to 15 years), as the first wave of the babyboom population approaches retirement age to 75 years old; A considerable portion of this housing market category will also be comprised of seasonal dwellers. 2. Older Seniors/Dependant Retirees (75+ Years of Age) Key characteristics include: Older seniors (i.e. average 75+); Generally living on low to moderate fixed-incomes; Many residents will age-in-place, however, a portion will also require assisted living or full-time care (i.e. seniors housing);

20 7-19 An increasing number of permanent residents living in the rural areas of the District will look to the Urban Centres of Muskoka as a place for retirement given the amenities and services that these communities provide (i.e. access to available commercial and community services such as local shopping, hospital and health care facilities, community centres, places of worship, etc.). A portion of these rural residents will also require assisted living or full-time care; Demand within demographic/market group will be primarily driven from the aging of the local population base, as opposed to in-migration; Community services, design and density will directly support or inhibit the lifestyles of these older adults; Demand for this demographic group is anticipated to be greatest during the post 2021 period, as an increasing percentage of the population base reaches 75+ years of age; and Of particular concern is the fact that no new seniors home developments are identified in the District s current housing supply. However, in several cases the local municipality s of Muskoka District permit the development of seniors-oriented housing on institutional lands, which is not captured in the housing supply Family Oriented Housing Housing demand from this demographic group is anticipated to be moderate to steady, due to the relatively smaller proportion of population growth in the 20-54, and 0-19 age group, as compared to the 55+ age group. General characteristics of this housing market in Muskoka include (but are not limited to) the following: The age group currently represents the largest percentage of the population in Muskoka (46%); however, over the next 25 years, it will experience only 23% of total population growth for the District (refer to Tables 7-7a and 7-7b); Demand is generally greatest for traditional 3 to 4 bedroom, two-storey units; Household sizes generally average approximately 3.0+ persons per unit (ppu) for newer units (aged 1 to 20 years); The average prices for new family oriented developments are moderately higher than the average price of existing non-waterfront housing in Muskoka District. For example, the average starting price for a new 1,600 sq.ft. Mattamy home in Bracebridge is

21 7-20 $253,000 vs. $226,600 for an average resale non-waterfront lot in Bracebridge, which leads to concerns about the future affordability of family housing. Although the future population share for the age group is forecast to decline over the next 25 years, this population category will still increase by approximately 4,590 adults + 1,890 children (0-19 years of age) (or 28% of total population growth) from 2006 to Accordingly, Muskoka District will need to provide housing solutions which support the working age population. Based on our review of the current supply of units in the development approvals process, there are minimal current development projects which cater to this population group. While there are some developments (such as the Mattamy housing development in Bracebridge) that are located near schools, sports complexes and other community amenities, suggesting a market for families, there is some scepticism (by local municipalities and realtors) as to whether these types of developments are affordably priced to accommodate the local family-oriented housing market. TABLE 7-5a MUSKOKA DISTRICT EXISTING POPULATION PERCENTAGES BY MAJOR AGE GROUP (2006) Age Group 2006 Percentage of Existing Population Base (2006) ,290 22% ,690 46% ,220 24% 75+ 4,780 8% Total 59, % Source: C4SE, 2007 TABLE 7-5b MUSKOKA DISTRICT PERCENTAGE POPULATION GROWTH BY AGE MAJOR AGE GROUP Age Group Percentage of Population Growth, ,890 8% ,390 20% ,390 51% 75+ 4,820 21% Total 22, % Source: C4SE, 2007

22 Affordable Housing The Province of Ontario 1 defines affordable housing as: 1. Housing for which the purchase price (or rent) results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual income; and 2. Housing for which the purchase price (or rent) is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. In accordance with criteria 1, the following housing affordability calculation has been developed for Muskoka District: Based on 2001 Census data, the average gross household income for Muskoka ranged from a low of $42,980 ($3,573 monthly) to $58,600 ($4,883 monthly); 2 As of 2001, the average cost of a non-waterfront house in Muskoka ranged from $118,800 to $151,200 (note: housing prices for non-waterfront lots have increased by approximately 5% to 10% annually since range subject to municipal location); Assuming an interest rate of 6.0% and down payment of 10%, total mortgage payments would be approximately $750 to $887 monthly or $9,000 to $10,525 annually; Additional costs for taxes and utilities would increase total monthly housing costs to approximately $1,050 to $1,308 per month or $12,600 to $15,700 per year; In accordance with the above assumptions, the average percentage of household income devoted to housing costs is approximately 29% for households at the lower end of the income average (i.e. $12,600/$42,880) to 27% for households at the higher end of the income average (i.e. $15,700/$58,800). At a high level, the average cost of a permanent house in Muskoka appears to just meet the Provincial definition for affordability, given the above assumptions as of However, it should be noted that the inflation rate for Ontario has only increased by an average of 1.9% per year since 2001, which is well below the average annual increase for non-waterfront housing in Muskoka District, as identified above. Given recent trends in housing prices, as of 2007, it is very likely that for several local municipalities throughout Muskoka District, the average price of a non-waterfront house is not affordable. 1 Provincial Policy Statement, Range based on municipal location.

23 7-22 Moreover, as of 2001, approximately 17% of the Muskoka labour force base earned less than $20,000 per year, which is comparatively higher than most Central Ontario municipalities, but lower than the Provincial average. Over the next 25 years it is anticipated that the percentage of Muskoka s permanent population base earning less than $20,000 per year will increase as a result of a continued shift in employment growth from export-based (industrial) to communitybased (retail, tourism-related) employment. Table 7-8 illustrates that the average wage for community based jobs such as Food and Accommodation and Retail is significantly lower than traditional export based sectors such as manufacturing. TABLE 7-8 AVERAGE WAGE RATES BY EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (ONTARIO) Basic-Employment (Export-Based) 2003 Manufacturing $18.92 Construction $20.63 Transportation and Warehousing $18.17 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services $17.66 Non-Basic Employment (Community-Based or Population- Related) 2003 Food and Accommodation $9.55 Retail Trade $13.82 Source: Statistics Canada, Survey of Employment Payrolls and Hours, 2003 In addition to generally providing lower wage rates on average, community-based jobs generally provide a lower percentage of full-time employment, often with fewer benefits and employment security. Table 7-9 summarizes the anticipated percentage of full-time vs. part-time employees for Muskoka District, based on the base 2007 employment forecast (base scenario) generated by C4SE (to be further explored in Chapter 8). Table 7-9 identifies that over the next 25 years there will be a shift in the percentage of part-time employees in Muskoka from 27% in 2006 to 31% in 2031 due to an increase in the share of community-based employment.

24 7-23 TABLE 7-9 MUSKOKA DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT FORECAST BY FULL- AND PART-TIME CLASSIFICATION Employment Full-time Part-Time % 27% % 28% % 29% % 30% % 30% % 31% Source: C4SE, Base forecast scenario. The current supply of affordable housing within Muskoka District is also of concern. Table 7-10 illustrates that 80% of the housing supply in Muskoka is owned, and there is little evidence of new affordable rental accommodations being developed. TABLE 7-10 MUSKOKA DISTRICT HOUSING TENURE Tenure Percentage Municipality Total Housing Units Owned Rented Owned Rented Muskoka District 20,695 16,565 4,080 80% 20% Bracebridge 5,290 4,175 1,115 79% 21% Georgian Bay % 18% Gravenhurst 4,190 3, % 23% Huntsville 6,640 5,200 1,435 78% 22% Lake of Bays 1,255 1, % 14% Muskoka Lakes 2,470 2, % 10% Source: Census 2001 Note: percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. Discussions with local realtors, developers, municipal staff and a review of existing housing reports for Muskoka District, identified that considerable demand exists for a range of affordable housing developments which would cater to both low and moderate income households in Muskoka District.

25 Seasonal Housing As previously identified in Chapter 3, seasonal housing represents approximately 47% of the total Muskoka housing base as of 2006, and is expected to increase significantly over the next 25 years largely due to the continued growth of the GGH population. Generally, the average age of seasonal homeowners is older (as compared to the permanent population) and largely comprised of the highest income-earning portion of the population. The following identifies the key characteristics and features of seasonal sub-markets within Muskoka Traditional Cottage Traditional cottages are typically single detached and on waterfront; The cottage market has traditionally be strongest on the big three Muskoka A lakes, including Rosseau, Muskoka and Joseph; There has been a growing demand for cottage properties throughout the Lake of Bays area, which includes B & C type lakes abutting Haliburton; As identified in Chapter 3, prices for traditional cottage properties in Muskoka start at $350,000-$500,000; The average price for a cottage on an A lake in Muskoka with 200 of frontage is approximately $800,000 to $1 million; The definitions of cottages and homes have become blurred in recent decades. There appears to be a growing trend to convert cottages to year-around homes, which has been recognized throughout this study; The supply of vacant waterfront lots is gradually diminishing across Muskoka, which continues to increase the cost for both vacant land and resale cottage properties. However, recent sale prices appear to have slowed in some areas of Muskoka in recent years Resort Ownership Resort properties in Muskoka offer various forms of ownership (i.e. full, fractional, pooled, etc.);

26 7-25 Resort ownership is desirable for the ample amenities and lack of maintenance, and therefore represents a growing segment of the seasonal housing market; Resort properties are generally being marketed to all demographic groups, however, considerable emphasis has been geared towards existing cottagers in the 55+ age group who are becoming less enthusiastic with the responsibilities of cottage ownership/maintenance; Interest in resort units has been experienced by both Ontario-based and international buyers. For example, approximately 25% of all units currently sold at Red Leaves (located in Minett) have been purchased from residents of the United Kingdom and Ireland; The resort market for seasonal housing appears to represent an add-on to the current traditional cottage market, as opposed to a shift Fractional Ownership Fractional ownership is similar to time-share where a number of owners have a share in a unit; This is becoming a more desirable option for people who cannot afford a traditional cottage or do not want the maintenance of a traditional cottage; This is also becoming a desirable option as they cater to specialty needs and desires, such as children s programs and golf course packages; The Phase 1 ES is exploring the market potential of fractional ownership in Muskoka District Other Other seasonal options exist such as: Second home purchases on non-waterfront developments, including new serviced development in Urban Centres (i.e. plans of subdivision/condominium) 1 ; and Mobile homes in designated trailer parks.

27 Observations The analysis provided in this Chapter identifies a number of key observations with respect to the District s current housing supply and short-to long-term needs: The District of Muskoka currently meets the PPS requirements with respect to the supply of draft approved/registered housing supply and residentially designated lands; The District of Muskoka has an oversupply of permanent housing; The District s waterfront lot supply (i.e. seasonal housing potential) is considerably more limited, but existing vacant waterfront lots still provide a supply beyond 20 years. The permanent and seasonal population base is becoming increasingly more integrated and blurred, largely due to the growing and diverse market for retirement, semiretirement and recreational housing in Muskoka; and Housing affordability is anticipated to become an increasingly important issue for many of the District s current and future permanent residents. 1 As previously noted, our housing forecast assumes that existing and new development within Urban Centres is categorized as permanent.