Sure. But that’s some of the richest agricultural land in the country.
It’s still not clear to me why we’ve decided economic activity in an enormous country of 38 million people should be concentrated in two or three megacities. With the technology we have today, shouldn’t geographical proximity to other workers matter less and less?
In theory it should change now since companies likely don't need to bring a lot of their office employees back to the office.
It won't change however until companies are willing to say this is our new permanent arrangement and people trust that they won't change their mind 3 months from now and try to bring them back to the office.
Back to my original statement - there’s ton of room for affordable housing - people just don’t want to live there !
There's room around where people want to live as well. Its not like the area around Toronto is just barreled up with housing.
But the land is either farm land or doesn't have any infrastructure to deal with an influx of people. If money was no object - you could make Toronto like 5x its current size. You don't have to fire people out to Saskatoon to find room. Its just expensive to built endlessly outward.
Please Elaborate - There is no inheritance tax in Canada and you don't report it as income, so what exactly are they taking 50% of?
The estate would dispose of assets at the time of death, but that would be normally taxed but not at 50%...
Moreover, disposition of a principal residence at the time of death isn't usually considered a taxable capital gain anyway, so when it comes to housing most estates pay nothing in the way of taxes on them.
Eyyyyyyy, nice to see someone else bringing this up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse
It always amuses me to no end that many of the loudest voices in the "up not out" movement chose single detached/attached housing for themselves. Just as long as they themselves don't have to live in apartment style condo units I suppose.
Are you sure? It's easy to say that but "up not out" shouldn't fall exclusively into 500 square foot rectangles. If that's all they keep building for densification, don't be surprised when people are looking for a little more breathing room. 1200-1800 sq ft townhouses/condos/etc that can be lived in by more than 1 person would be appreciated.
I think the Non-suburban, outer core neighborhoods are going to be key to sustainable growth. In Calgary, think Sunalta/Bridgeland/RenfrewCapital Hill/Parkdale/Hillhurst/Spruce Cliff/Killarney/Glengarry/Altidore. These are the communities that are really going to need those Missing Middle solutions and capitalize on densified infrastructure, such as transit.
It is being eaten up all the time in the GTA and has only contributed to pricing increasing as (IMO) investors snap up new builds before real people can even look at them. The investors look to multiply their money during build (invest small deposit and sell for market rate) instead of a real family being able to buy at the lower pre-build price. Instead of a family being able to buy a house for $500-800k, they must pay the post build $1.2-2.0m+ prices. More supply won’t necessarily help, unless there are restrictions on who can buy (etc) - more red tape, not less.
I mean the bolded just isn't logical. If you increase the supply of something the price is lower than it would be without that increased supply, that's the first day of Econ 101.
However, when generations of people believe that housing can only go up demand becomes pretty inelastic and you get people buying on speculation. The easiest way to stop that would be to have a housing crash of epic proportions (US 2008-2009 style) but obviously there would be lots of collateral damage from that. The government has been trying to engineer a soft landing for housing for a long time, but national policy is a bad way to do that.
The 2nd tier cities don't need tighter CMHC rules and higher interest rates, and Vancouver and Toronto do. But supply and demand are local - if you added a bunch of zoned land supply to the 2 over valued cities you'd eventually see a price response.
Edited to add: more supply doesn't need to mean endless miles of cookie cutter suburbia. It means adding more land and then building complete neighborhoods with a variety of built forms. It also means making re-zoning to higher densities more feasible.
Its not sustainable to keep building single-home dwellings at an astronomical rate to try and meet 'housing' demand.
We need more reasonably priced multi-unit projects.
Every single multi-unit project that I know of in Winnipeg is pre-sold before it is finished being built.
How many are purchased as rentals? Or to flip. I know a lot of people who do that, especially the flip. Buy very early on, sell when completed. That has to be restricted in order to achieve what people are asking for. It won't be, so very little will change.
Last edited by AFireInside; 09-15-2022 at 03:30 PM.
I wish there was stats on how many of these were bought by people who lived in them 5+ years vs those that bought them as flippable investments
Most of the ones we've worked on are filled 50% before the ground is broke, and 100% by the time the unit is done, and the residents are generally longer-term.
I think the Non-suburban, outer core neighborhoods are going to be key to sustainable growth. In Calgary, think Sunalta/Bridgeland/RenfrewCapital Hill/Parkdale/Hillhurst/Spruce Cliff/Killarney/Glengarry/Altidore. These are the communities that are really going to need those Missing Middle solutions and capitalize on densified infrastructure, such as transit.
Yes, they are key. That ring of communities that mostly started as post-war suburbs but became inner-city neighbourhoods in the decades since are the most ripe for densification. Being that they mostly follow the street grid and have rectangular blocks it's much much easier for them to be redeveloped. Unfortunately they have some of the most vociferous opponents to it.
Neighbourhoods like Scarboro and Mount Royal are problematic because of restrictive covenants...
Most of the ones we've worked on are filled 50% before the ground is broke, and 100% by the time the unit is done, and the residents are generally longer-term.
Yes, they are key. That ring of communities that mostly started as post-war suburbs but became inner-city neighbourhoods in the decades since are the most ripe for densification. Being that they mostly follow the street grid and have rectangular blocks it's much much easier for them to be redeveloped. Unfortunately they have some of the most vociferous opponents to it.
Neighbourhoods like Scarboro and Mount Royal are problematic because of restrictive covenants...
Aren’t those neighbourhoods already being densified? Most of the properties in Altadore today are infills and new builds. It’s actually pretty rare to see an original home. Same thing is happening in Killarney, etc.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Yes, they are key. That ring of communities that mostly started as post-war suburbs but became inner-city neighbourhoods in the decades since are the most ripe for densification. Being that they mostly follow the street grid and have rectangular blocks it's much much easier for them to be redeveloped. Unfortunately they have some of the most vociferous opponents to it.
Neighbourhoods like Scarboro and Mount Royal are problematic because of restrictive covenants...
But neither of those areas follows much of an easily redevelopable grid pattern. They can be considered problematic when we start running low on parcels in those areas.
