getting a little tired of the crack/meth heads

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

If only we had all the money in the world we could solve all of the ills.

Even then, gving money to people doesn't actually build new homes. There simply aren't enough homes in Canada to house the population. Quite a feat, considering we have one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

[Matata]

Vancouver and other parts of the West Coast have been shooting a geyser of money at the problem and it only seems to have made things worse, much much worse. The people directing these programs are ideologically possessed into thinking the only solution lies in more bloated and more expensive programs.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by blankall

Even then, gving money to people doesn't actually build new homes. There simply aren't enough homes in Canada to house the population. Quite a feat, considering we have one of the least densely populated countries in the world.

I think part of the issue is home standards. Look at old war homes; we could put up tons of homes of much lesser quality than what they build in the suburbs as a base unit, and plenty of people would be happy to live in them. We need more diverse options, and those diverse options can't just be $400,000 classy fitting townhomes. I am talking 3 bedroom 1 bath bungalow boxes, unfinished basements. We could prefab these at this point. Honestly, this seems like a totally self inflicted problem.

[Locke]

The 'Charitable' organizations that are receiving civic and state funding in California have done an admirable job of making sure that the problem persists as long as possible in order to keep grifting their respective Governments for cash for 'operations.'

[Playfair]

They deal with surface-level issues with band aides and dint deal with the heart of the problem. Until they dowe will continue on this slippery slope

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I think part of the issue is home standards. Look at old war homes; we could put up tons of homes of much lesser quality than what they build in the suburbs as a base unit, and plenty of people would be happy to live in them. We need more diverse options, and those diverse options can't just be $400,000 classy fitting townhomes. I am talking 3 bedroom 1 bath bungalow boxes, unfinished basements. We could prefab these at this point. Honestly, this seems like a totally self inflicted problem.

The building standards creep in the code, while long been desirable to increase quality and energy performance of housing stock, along with materials and labour inflation has pushed construction costs to outrageous levels. Not including land, it takes $350/sq ft right now to achieve a minimum structure, and that number rises the smaller the build is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yup. Cost to build on my site in BC is literally double what it was about 10 years ago.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I think part of the issue is home standards. Look at old war homes; we could put up tons of homes of much lesser quality than what they build in the suburbs as a base unit, and plenty of people would be happy to live in them. We need more diverse options, and those diverse options can't just be $400,000 classy fitting townhomes. I am talking 3 bedroom 1 bath bungalow boxes, unfinished basements. We could prefab these at this point. Honestly, this seems like a totally self inflicted problem.

It's not that simple.

Zoning has created land shortages.

When you have a shortage, it's the bottom of the market that gets squeezed out. The reason why builders are only building homes with high end finishings is that people who buy places like that are the only ones left in the market.

Expecting a developer to fork out huge amounts of money to buy land and demolish the old structure (demolition and disposal is insanely expensive now) and then put up a structure with less return is not realistic. As long as the pressures creating this shortage exist, we will only see developers building for the higher end market.

The reason why we saw so many bungalows being built in the 1950s-1970s was that land was insanely cheap. You could buy a suburb plot for next to nothing and then throw a box on it and make an easy margin. Not the case anymore.

Although speaking to build quality. Something built in the 1940-1960s is often a higher quality than many modern builds. Even with new codes, developers are cutting corners wherever they can. Many of the places built in the 1940s-1960s, that are still standing, used techniques that are no longer feasible. For example: large old growth beams, full plaster/wood (as opposed to drywall) walls, oak trimming, oak hardwood, etc...

IMO the biggest rip off is an overpriced strata unit with an inflated price due to higher end appliances and finishings. Those higher end appliance and finishings will need replacing in 10-20 years, and you're left with a strata unit that needs renovation that you overpaid for and won't realize much gain on.

[TorqueDog]

I don't care how bad the meth head problem is in downtown, I would give anything to be back in my glass box in the sky and never have to shovel this much f-cking snow again.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's not that simple.

Zoning has created land shortages.

When you have a shortage, it's the bottom of the market that gets squeezed out. The reason why builders are only building homes with high end finishings is that people who buy places like that are the only ones left in the market.

Expecting a developer to fork out huge amounts of money to buy land and demolish the old structure (demolition and disposal is insanely expensive now) and then put up a structure with less return is not realistic. As long as the pressures creating this shortage exist, we will only see developers building for the higher end market.

The reason why we saw so many bungalows being built in the 1950s-1970s was that land was insanely cheap. You could buy a suburb plot for next to nothing and then throw a box on it and make an easy margin. Not the case anymore.

Although speaking to build quality. Something built in the 1940-1960s is often a higher quality than many modern builds. Even with new codes, developers are cutting corners wherever they can. Many of the places built in the 1940s-1960s, that are still standing, used techniques that are no longer feasible. For example: large old growth beams, full plaster/wood (as opposed to drywall) walls, oak trimming, oak hardwood, etc...

IMO the biggest rip off is an overpriced strata unit with an inflated price due to higher end appliances and finishings. Those higher end appliance and finishings will need replacing in 10-20 years, and you're left with a strata unit that needs renovation that you overpaid for and won't realize much gain on.

Yeah I know it's not that simple. We are agreeing here, your last paragraph is the more detailed version of my simple point!

The "low" end of the market now is a total wealth trap, and even that is out of reach for a huge portion of the market just because of land development costs. We need to go back to the drawing board on building codes and standards, and land development concepts.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I don't care how bad the meth head problem is in downtown, I would give anything to be back in my glass box in the sky and never have to shovel this much f-cking snow again.

The need to own a detached home and live in the suburbs "dream" is a trap in itself. If you're not using the land, it's not worth owning. We bought a detached home, for our daughter and potential 2nd child. If there were townhouses that were properly designed for families in Vancouver, I would 100% live in one of those.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah I know it's not that simple. We are agreeing here, your last paragraph is the more detailed version of my simple point!

The "low" end of the market now is a total wealth trap, and even that is out of reach for a huge portion of the market just because of land development costs. We need to go back to the drawing board on building codes and standards, and land development concepts.

The problem is that the people who are already in a good position, especially property wise, like the status quo. It's amazing how many urbanites living on expensive properties suddenly have a massive interest in preserving farm land just outside the city or promoting bike lanes over transit.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem is that the people who are already in a good position, especially property wise, like the status quo. It's amazing how many urbanites living on expensive properties suddenly have a massive interest in preserving farm land just outside the city or promoting bike lanes over transit.

If you think that's bad, imagine how the owners of property on the coastal island I'm trying to build a cabin on are. "Oh, my place I've owned since the 80's is now worth $5 million? Well, let me express my concern about the lack of solar panels you have there... seems to me that the only people who should be able to live here are Jeff Bezos' relatives."

[topfiverecords]

Cost effective construction on a coastal island isn’t going to be the relevant ticket to solving the housing crisis so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it to the discussion other than to CHL humble brag.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Cost effective construction on a coastal island isn’t going to be the relevant ticket to solving the housing crisis so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it to the discussion other than to CHL humble brag.

I think NIMBY actions are a big factor in our housing shortage though. While we won't solve it with Corsi building what is probably a vacation property, allowing more missing middle housing where those 60s bungalows are now might help quite a bit. Once you add in ALR/green zone policies expressly designed to limit housing development, it doesn't take much to see why we have an affordability crisis in our housing markets.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Cost effective construction on a coastal island isn’t going to be the relevant ticket to solving the housing crisis so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it to the discussion other than to CHL humble brag.

IDK, I don't think CHL is a braggart. Dude's a lawyer, probably mid-30s to early-40s, he's planning a vacation/retirement property...just doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. I like hearing about the neat stuff people are doing. I think I knew he had some property, but I know I didn't know it was in BC or on an island, so he definitely hasn't been beating us over the head with it. Frankly, it sounds like it would be cool to hear/see more about it.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, I don't think CHL is a braggart. Dude's a lawyer, probably mid-30s to early-40s, he's planning a vacation/retirement property...just doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. I like hearing about the neat stuff people are doing. I think I knew he had some property, but I know I didn't know it was in BC or on an island, so he definitely hasn't been beating us over the head with it. Frankly, it sounds like it would be cool to hear/see more about it.

+1

I'd love to see a thread on that.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, I don't think CHL is a braggart. Dude's a lawyer, probably mid-30s to early-40s, he's planning a vacation/retirement property...just doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. I like hearing about the neat stuff people are doing. I think I knew he had some property, but I know I didn't know it was in BC or on an island, so he definitely hasn't been beating us over the head with it. Frankly, it sounds like it would be cool to hear/see more about it.

It’s akin to responding to a discussion about waiting for the bus in -30 weather with “I had to fork out an extra $1500 for the heated seat package on my new car”.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Sliver

IDK, I don't think CHL is a braggart. Dude's a lawyer, probably mid-30s to early-40s, he's planning a vacation/retirement property...just doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. I like hearing about the neat stuff people are doing. I think I knew he had some property, but I know I didn't know it was in BC or on an island, so he definitely hasn't been beating us over the head with it. Frankly, it sounds like it would be cool to hear/see more about it.

Summer of the Island Fortress.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Before we even consider changing building codes or worrying about building more homes, we need to deal with how inaccessible existing housing is.

You can build more homes but if the only people buying them are the wealthy, who then create artificial scarcity which puts more demand on the market, plus increases already outrageous rental prices, then we’re no further ahead.

What needs to happen first is the government needs to remove all tax advantages to rental properties. Make gross rental income fully taxable with no deductions. Then charge increasingly higher tax rates the more properties owned. We need to make home ownership more accessible using the inventory already there.

Then mandate all new construction of condo low/high rises be at least 50% for sale to the public. No more corporate owned condo towers. The subscription model is permeating every facet of our lives and we need to take steps to stop it.

Then we can worry about building more. Of course, none of the above will ever happen because, as was already alluded to above, homeowners, politicians and the ultra rich benefit the most financially from the status quo. Making home ownership accessible would be a massive disruption to wealth generation for property hoarders and the rich.