Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
Doesn't that make sense? Brand new housing is going to always be of higher value, as buildings are depreciating assets.
|
If there is a housing crisis about lower income families not being able to afford homes that don't look like commie blocks, then the immediate focus should on building homes that look like this rather wasting time on the slow and expensive process of densification in areas where land is worth several million dollars or more per acre.
There was a Maclean's article from about a year ago about a family of five that relocated from Vancouver to Calgary and even with a modest budget for Calgary, were able to find a pretty decent townhouse for less than $300K two years ago in a newer NE community. Affordable for a two-income family, still doable with a decent single income and some sacrifices.
Quote:
|
The three-storey townhouse was listed at $295,000 and was a 20-minute drive from downtown Calgary. The main entrance opened up to a ground-floor den, while the kitchen, living room and a powder room were on the second floor. The third floor had three bedrooms and two full bathrooms. It was a corner unit, so plenty of sunlight flooded in. “When we walked in, we had the immediate feeling that it was our home,” Nicole says. And there was a playground just a one-minute walk away.
|
Even if that TH's current market value is more like $400K, it's still not going be possible for anything new in the inner city to come close to that value.
https://macleans.ca/economy/realesta...-of-vancouver/
But that means doing something that supposed advocates hate even more than people not being able to afford housing, which is sprawl and new development.