04-16-2022, 07:41 PM
|
#1621
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Is cost of construction a problem?
In theory the price of bare land will just fluctuate to soak up any construction cost changes.
|
The best way to deal with high costs would be to increase the supply of land. That would require both more upzoning in existing areas and the relaxation of "green zone" type policies around the largest cities.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-16-2022, 08:31 PM
|
#1622
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Park Hyatt Tokyo
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
The best way to deal with high costs would be to increase the supply of land. That would require both more upzoning in existing areas and the relaxation of "green zone" type policies around the largest cities.
|
We should connect an air pump to the earth and blow it up bigger, maybe circumference to 200%, so all land stretches allowing every existing lot the ability to subdivide in half. That would open up an immense amount of buildable area.
|
|
|
04-16-2022, 09:06 PM
|
#1623
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by topfiverecords
We should connect an air pump to the earth and blow it up bigger, maybe circumference to 200%, so all land stretches allowing every existing lot the ability to subdivide in half. That would open up an immense amount of buildable area.
|
Canada has an unbelievably low population density, even if you excluded everything north of the latitude of Red Deer as being no-good.
The shortage of land is absolutely artificial, and creates winners and losers.
|
|
|
04-16-2022, 09:45 PM
|
#1624
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Park Hyatt Tokyo
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Canada has an unbelievably low population density, even if you excluded everything north of the latitude of Red Deer as being no-good.
The shortage of land is absolutely artificial, and creates winners and losers.
|
Open land with low population isn’t on the radar for 98% of the general population if it’s more than 5km from a Costco.
|
|
|
04-16-2022, 09:54 PM
|
#1625
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by topfiverecords
Open land with low population isn’t on the radar for 98% of the general population if it’s more than 5km from a Costco.
|
We could put 4 times the houses in lake bonnevista and it would still be low density. NIMBY zoning is a huge issue
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-16-2022, 11:09 PM
|
#1626
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by topfiverecords
Open land with low population isn’t on the radar for 98% of the general population if it’s more than 5km from a Costco.
|
You could build entire new cities (complete with Costco) on the urban fringes of Toronto/Vancouver metro areas in land that has development prohibited.
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 07:41 AM
|
#1627
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
You could build entire new cities (complete with Costco) on the urban fringes of Toronto/Vancouver metro areas in land that has development prohibited.
|
If we pave over some of the richest agricultural land in the country, along with wetlands and watersheds. It’s tempting to dismiss green belt restrictions as NIMBYism, but those policies have sound ecological merit.
Why do we concede that almost all population growth in Canada will be around two or three megacities, and there’s just no way around that?
__________________
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 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-17-2022, 08:44 AM
|
#1628
|
Franchise Player
|
I’m no expert but detached housing is also expensive to build, support and maintain (ie roads and infrastructure). Mid to high density housing is more sustainable I think?
Also, with the trend moving to more WFH, do people even need to live in Vancouver or Toronto anymore? Obviously there are other amenities there, but if I worked there I think there would be a very strong benefit to remote working versus having to commute two hours each day…
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 09:37 AM
|
#1629
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
If we pave over some of the richest agricultural land in the country, along with wetlands and watersheds. It’s tempting to dismiss green belt restrictions as NIMBYism, but those policies have sound ecological merit.
Why do we concede that almost all population growth in Canada will be around two or three megacities, and there’s just no way around that?
|
Most of the smaller cities in Canada are at capacity too. Most smaller cities offer lower wages, and they are already seeing dramatic increases in living expenses. If you were to increase their populations by another 20%, you end up with a Fort Mac situation, where you have people paying ridiculous amounts to live in trailer parks.
Telling people to move to another city isn't a solution. That's already occurring and there's nowhere left. Even Manitoba has a massive housing shortage:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/hous...port-1.5738068
The solution is open up more land/zoning or stop letting people in. The government has stated it wants Canada to have a population of 100 million by 2100. There is no way to do that with our existing housing supply.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-17-2022, 11:19 AM
|
#1630
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
If we pave over some of the richest agricultural land in the country, along with wetlands and watersheds. It’s tempting to dismiss green belt restrictions as NIMBYism, but those policies have sound ecological merit.
Why do we concede that almost all population growth in Canada will be around two or three megacities, and there’s just no way around that?
|
I also said you need to remove NIMBY zoning restrictions inside cities for increased density.
Frankly, I think greenbelt policies are more FYGM - they benefit existing detached home owners by artificially limiting new supply.
And there are 89MM acres of farmland in Canada. The city of Toronto takes up 0.155 MM acres. You could add a very large amount of new land to Toronto and Vancouver in a way that would really help address inequality in this country in exchange for 0.1% of the farmland.
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 11:30 AM
|
#1631
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
I'm curious what specific city people expect existing Canadians and the 400k/year new Canadians to move to? Lethbridge? Saskatoon? When those cities reach capacity in 3 months, then where?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
|
|
04-17-2022, 11:43 AM
|
#1632
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
|
What is the consequence of not being able to own a home?
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 11:54 AM
|
#1633
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
What is the consequence of not being able to own a home?
|
Home ownership has historically been the major way that people acquire wealth in north America. If you don't own, you're stuck renting. Which means evictions, lack of maintenance, lifelong rental payments, etc...
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 11:55 AM
|
#1634
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I'm curious what specific city people expect existing Canadians and the 400k/year new Canadians to move to? Lethbridge? Saskatoon? When those cities reach capacity in 3 months, then where?
|
I’m not saying we don’t need to build new houses. I’m questioning why we need to build them all in already highly dense and expensive regions like SW Ontario and the Lower Mainland.
__________________
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.
|
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 11:59 AM
|
#1635
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
Home ownership has historically been the major way that people acquire wealth in north America. If you don't own, you're stuck renting. Which means evictions, lack of maintenance, lifelong rental payments, etc...
|
Home ownership rates in Switzerland are 36 per cent and in Germany 46 per cent (vs 69 per cent in Canada), and those are two of the most affluent, stable countries in the world.
__________________
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:
|
|
04-17-2022, 12:04 PM
|
#1636
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
I’m not saying we don’t need to build new houses. I’m questioning why we need to build them all in already highly dense and expensive regions like SW Ontario and the Lower Mainland.
|
Where would you propose they get built? The existing mega cities will build out at higher densities, so less farmland used per new residence.
Building the new housing stock where people want to live seems like it makes sense to me.
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 12:05 PM
|
#1637
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
|
The obvious problem to re-zoning all that rural land around Toronto is you just do it for SFH, that then turn into more awful suburbs, creating more expensive traffic problems, and generally make the area even more miserable to exist in.
Perhaps increasing business property taxes in over-crowded cities, and incentivizing branch offices in smaller cities would help motivate corporations to spread out their workforce? Not sure if that is a solution or not, but continuing to pack people into the GTA, and expand it, isn't going to improve things.
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 12:24 PM
|
#1638
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Home ownership rates in Switzerland are 36 per cent and in Germany 46 per cent (vs 69 per cent in Canada), and those are two of the most affluent, stable countries in the world.
|
Germany has an extremely controlled renting scheme, that was only really possible to put in place due to the devastation caused by WW2. The government was able to build planned and controlled rental infrastructure. In order to do the same thing in Canada, you've have to tear down a quarter if the existing structures and replace them with planned and heavily controlled rental stock.
Emulating Switzerland's economy isn't really possible. That's like saying why can't everyone just be rich like people in Monaco. Switzerland and Germany also both have massive underclasses of largely immigrant populations, that have zero hope of getting ahead. Many can't even get citizenship Germany has about ten million people living there who cannot get citizenship and act as cheap labor, not really a model Canada is looking to follow. Although by shutting people out of home ownership, that's de facto where we are heading.
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 08:45 PM
|
#1639
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
Isn’t that the goal of the TFW program
|
|
|
04-17-2022, 10:11 PM
|
#1640
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Uzbekistan
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
What is the consequence of not being able to own a home?
|
For most it’s the lack of a forced savings plan. I doubt many people who rent invest a large % of their income in the stock market.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:07 AM.
|
|