*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[timun]

Look man, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the thought process and the feelings behind people still buying. Rationally, from an inflation-adjusted baseline of 1981 prices (when they peaked before the NEP), people have been nucking futs to buy property in Calgary since 2005 because the rise in prices since has far, faaaaaar outpaced inflation. (Coincidentally if you bought in 1981, your house value didn't "break even" vs. inflation until 2005...)

If homes were still worth what they were in 1981 and just followed inflation, they'd cost $347,779 on average today. The actual average is $552,273. Real-dollar prices haven't averaged ~$348k since 2006... They haven't been below $400k since the little dip in 2009.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I've heard lots of negative things about immigration lately, especially in relation to the housing shortage. Just started an excellent book called "Maximum Canada" that basically says we've always been an underpopulated country and we'll never realize our potential if we don't drastically increase immigration. Sir Wilfred Laurier actually thought we'd need 40 million people by 1920! So it only took us an extra hundred years give or take.

I heard the guy a few years ago on the radio that wrote that book, and I just strongly disagree with so mcuh of his thinking. We are already running into issues like the Toronto green belt where housing takes over farmland and green space. In Calgary we are going to develop a new community on valuable wetlands. More people everywhere means more stress on every part of the environment, from forestry to farming, increased forest fires, decreased water resources, more power demands, more pollution, more trash, more consumption, just more of everything. We need to leave places wild.


I look back to Calgary int he 90's and it was much more pleasant. Rush hour was completely over by 6, so getting around was easier, particularity on weekends. Bigger cities mean bigger city problems. Going to the mountains was easy. You really want to deal with double, triple the people? No thanks. I'd gladly go back to Calgary of a city of 750k, and not feel like I had lost anything of value. Hell, even bars and nightclubs were better then.


Can Canada hold more people? Sure, dense countries show you can do it, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by timun

Look man, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the thought process and the feelings behind people still buying. Rationally, from an inflation-adjusted baseline of 1981 prices (when they peaked before the NEP), people have been nucking futs to buy property in Calgary since 2005 because the rise in prices since has far, faaaaaar outpaced inflation. (Coincidentally if you bought in 1981, your house value didn't "break even" vs. inflation until 2005...)

If homes were still worth what they were in 1981 and just followed inflation, they'd cost $347,779 on average today. The actual average is $552,273. Real-dollar prices haven't averaged ~$348k since 2006... They haven't been below $400k since the little dip in 2009.

But you don’t buy houses with dollars. You buy houses with debt. The marginal home buyer will be some reflection of max term, interest rates and family income. So as down payment requirements dropped, mortgage insurance improved and the number of two income homebuyers increased the available dollars for home purchasing went up while units/person went down.

It’s much more likely to be that housing was undervalued previously in Calgary as today the median household income supports the purchase of the median home. (Or at least it did 1 year ago when I last looked, the latest interest rate increases may have pushed Calgary into slightly overpriced.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I heard the guy a few years ago on the radio that wrote that book, and I just strongly disagree with so mcuh of his thinking. We are already running into issues like the Toronto green belt where housing takes over farmland and green space. In Calgary we are going to develop a new community on valuable wetlands. More people everywhere means more stress on every part of the environment, from forestry to farming, increased forest fires, decreased water resources, more power demands, more pollution, more trash, more consumption, just more of everything. We need to leave places wild.


I look back to Calgary int he 90's and it was much more pleasant. Rush hour was completely over by 6, so getting around was easier, particularity on weekends. Bigger cities mean bigger city problems. Going to the mountains was easy. You really want to deal with double, triple the people? No thanks. I'd gladly go back to Calgary of a city of 750k, and not feel like I had lost anything of value. Hell, even bars and nightclubs were better then.


Can Canada hold more people? Sure, dense countries show you can do it, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.

I'm with you, I disagree with plenty of his takes. But I think his main take is about the size of the tax base, and I agree with the point. We can't be the country we want to be with free health care, strong public education, etc. without more government revenue. I don't believe there's any room or appetite for higher taxes so the only way to get there is by increasing the base to draw from. And if that's the case, and keeping on topic, where will all these extra people live?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I'm with you, I disagree with plenty of his takes. But I think his main take is about the size of the tax base, and I agree with the point. We can't be the country we want to be with free health care, strong public education, etc. without more government revenue. I don't believe there's any room or appetite for higher taxes so the only way to get there is by increasing the base to draw from. And if that's the case, and keeping on topic, where will all these extra people live?

I've always had a problem chasing perpetual growth for the sake of growth(and GDP). My hope is kinda that as automation helps reduce the need for workers we can get the GDP without adding more people(and more problems and cost). To get there though, we really need to target training and education to what is needed and I think we do a really poor job of that. We have so many holes in the trades that really shouldn't exist with planning. Same with doctors and nurses. Yet we have a surplus of naturopaths, life coaches, and social media influencers, and that shouldn't happen with proper planning.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I'm with you, I disagree with plenty of his takes. But I think his main take is about the size of the tax base, and I agree with the point. We can't be the country we want to be with free health care, strong public education, etc. without more government revenue. I don't believe there's any room or appetite for higher taxes so the only way to get there is by increasing the base to draw from. And if that's the case, and keeping on topic, where will all these extra people live?

This seems like a surefire way to create a self-perpetuating problem - need more people to draw taxes from, to support the services required, but then more people need more services, so... At best, it's a strategy to kick the can down the road.

On a per capita basis, Canada is probably the most resource-rich nation on the planet. The fact that it's come to this is ridiculous.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not only do the great majority of immigrants move to a handful of major cities, native-born Canadians themselves are vacating the rural hinterlands. Canada is becoming more, not less, urbanized. The plan seems to be for Canadians to cluster in 5 or 6 major cities of 5-15 million people each, while Northern Ontario, the prairies, rural Quebec, etc. are depopulated resource farms.

The problem is especially acute in Toronto and Vancouver, neither of which has much room to grow. Southern Ontario is a narrow peninsula, already as densely populated as much of Europe. I can’t see housing prices coming down substantially with that kind of population pressure.

Are there statistics on this? From what I've seen in the home building sector, many 2nd generation Canadians are moving to rural or small town locations if their work allows for it.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I heard the guy a few years ago on the radio that wrote that book, and I just strongly disagree with so mcuh of his thinking. We are already running into issues like the Toronto green belt where housing takes over farmland and green space. In Calgary we are going to develop a new community on valuable wetlands. More people everywhere means more stress on every part of the environment, from forestry to farming, increased forest fires, decreased water resources, more power demands, more pollution, more trash, more consumption, just more of everything. We need to leave places wild.


I look back to Calgary int he 90's and it was much more pleasant. Rush hour was completely over by 6, so getting around was easier, particularity on weekends. Bigger cities mean bigger city problems. Going to the mountains was easy. You really want to deal with double, triple the people? No thanks. I'd gladly go back to Calgary of a city of 750k, and not feel like I had lost anything of value. Hell, even bars and nightclubs were better then.


Can Canada hold more people? Sure, dense countries show you can do it, but I wouldn't want to live in any of them.

In some places in Asia, you build more cities and connect them via high speed rail. Imagine living in Cochrane, Okotoks, Chestermere, Airdrie etc. and getting from your station to Calgary station in 10-20 minutes because it's an uninterrupted high speed rail going 150-200 kmph... and technically that's a slow train. Imagine Canmore being 30 minutes away via train but more like 45 minutes door to door. There are options to avoid ultra densification of an urban environment.

I wonder if high speed rails into Vancouver or Toronto could help alleviate those pricing issues. It would allow for building denser in other areas that can still service the main hubs.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

In some places in Asia, you build more cities and connect them via high speed rail. Imagine living in Cochrane, Okotoks, Chestermere, Airdrie etc. and getting from your station to Calgary station in 10-20 minutes because it's an uninterrupted high speed rail going 150-200 kmph... and technically that's a slow train. Imagine Canmore being 30 minutes away via train but more like 45 minutes door to door. There are options to avoid ultra densification of an urban environment.

I wonder if high speed rails into Vancouver or Toronto could help alleviate those pricing issues. It would allow for building denser in other areas that can still service the main hubs.

If the basic goal of increased immigration is so the government can have a larger tax base just to keep the lights on, I'm not sure if spending 100s of billions on nationwide high speed rail connectivity is in the cards.

[Fuzz]

OK, then those small communities burst at the seams. Okotoks is out of water already. Resources are scarce, and that's what gets ignored so often.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, then those small communities burst at the seams. Okotoks is out of water already. Resources are scarce, and that's what gets ignored so often.

Well duh.

If anything, high speed rail to Okotoks would cause the population to explode, which it simply can't... So between that, and the ridiculousness of spending billions to connect a community of 30k, it's simply not feasible. (The example of "some places in Asia" conveniently ignores the fact that those cities connected by high speed rail are all larger than Calgary)

The far more likely scenario is for the government(s) to pull the zoning lever and let private developers build build build...

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by you&me

If the basic goal of increased immigration is so the government can have a larger tax base just to keep the lights on, I'm not sure if spending 100s of billions on nationwide high speed rail connectivity is in the cards.

I don't know if it would cost hundreds of billions. I think you'd incentivize CN and CP rail outside of the inner city and use those lines (likely raised) to build the high speed rail. But what you're saying is fair too. I was just saying what about ideas with less density added to our major cities.

Another idea that I've seen often, is that malls and apartments are often stacked on top of train lines in Asia. Many people transit only for work and everything else they need is self sustained in a small area. Chinook mall isn't even a passable concept of it. Here, we typically drive 2-3 minutes across loosely stacked retail segments of the city. There's gotta be a better way to do things.

I get that many Canadians will be pissed about less houses and more condos, but I honestly do think that mini retirement/care home cities and telework cities (sometimes corporation subsidized) would be a future that would make sense from an economy of scale situation. As much as I love the way we can do everything in our city, there are certain things that probably need to be spun out in an economies of scale situation to address issues and scalability issues for the major urban centres of Canada.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, then those small communities burst at the seams. Okotoks is out of water already. Resources are scarce, and that's what gets ignored so often.

Sure, but that's why it needs to get figured out. Canada can't say no to growing populations going forward. We can't rely solely on maxing out education and have a ton of white collar population making $100K+ per year in Canada WFH remotely. That just incentivizes a large population to emigrate from Canada putting us back to step 1.

Originally Posted by you&me

Well duh.

If anything, high speed rail to Okotoks would cause the population to explode, which it simply can't... So between that, and the ridiculousness of spending billions to connect a community of 30k, it's simply not feasible. (The example of "some places in Asia" conveniently ignores the fact that those cities connected by high speed rail are all larger than Calgary)

The far more likely scenario is for the government(s) to pull the zoning lever and let private developers build build build...

Obviously the long term goal is to set it up so that 30K population is more like 80-130K population. Not something grander like connecting Medicine Hat and Lethbridge to Calgary via bullet train.

Private developers will build anyways. I'm saying, maybe incentivize ways of creating Calgary bigger and wider like how Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby etc. are cluster cities. I've always assumed that Calgary CMA in 30-50+ years will be "Calgary" but have a 100-300K regions for Airdrie, Chestermere, Cochrane and 30-60K regions for Okotoks, Bragg Creek, Langdon etc.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I don't know if it would cost hundreds of billions. I think you'd incentivize CN and CP rail outside of the inner city and use those lines (likely raised) to build the high speed rail. But what you're saying is fair too. I was just saying what about ideas with less density added to our major cities.

Another idea that I've seen often, is that malls and apartments are often stacked on top of train lines in Asia. Many people transit only for work and everything else they need is self sustained in a small area. Chinook mall isn't even a passable concept of it. Here, we typically drive 2-3 minutes across loosely stacked retail segments of the city. There's gotta be a better way to do things.

I get that many Canadians will be pissed about less houses and more condos, but I honestly do think that mini retirement/care home cities and telework cities (sometimes corporation subsidized) would be a future that would make sense from an economy of scale situation. As much as I love the way we can do everything in our city, there are certain things that probably need to be spun out in an economies of scale situation to address issues and scalability issues for the major urban centres of Canada.



Sure, but that's why it needs to get figured out. Canada can't say no to growing populations going forward. We can't rely solely on maxing out education and have a ton of white collar population making $100K+ per year in Canada WFH remotely. That just incentivizes a large population to emigrate from Canada putting us back to step 1.

I really do think it would cost hundreds of billions to build a nation wide high speed rail network if we're talking about connecting places like Okotoks, but that's irrelevant because it will just never happen.

I do agree with the basic concept though, that growth needs to be distributed throughout the country... I just don't know how that can be achieved, as many immigrants, after coming from across the world, rightfully seek out a sense of community, which is far easier to do in the big cities... The same cities with the worst affordability, so again, more self-perpetuating problems inflicted by poorly conceived government policy.

Your other point touches on what I was saying early about the blanket upzoning and why I don't think we need to do that (yet). Your example of Chinook is great, as there are acres of under-utilized land that could be redeveloped into a higher density multi-use node. I know that's an existing strategy for the city, but it would be nice to see some of those come to fruition before, again, rezoning Sliver's house to a 4-plex... I just don't feel like that's necessary with where Calgary is in its current built form.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by you&me

... At best, it's a strategy to kick the can down the road.

It is. But it’s the strategy being adopted across the developed world by countries facing a problem without historical precedent - relentlessly increasing demand on expensive and expansive entitlements, in aging societies where the dependency ratio is getting worse and worse. The structural solution is some combination of increased taxation and reduced access to entitlements. Which is political suicide. So politicians turn to the stop-gap of temporarily improving the dependency ratio.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are there statistics on this? From what I've seen in the home building sector, many 2nd generation Canadians are moving to rural or small town locations if their work allows for it.

9 in 10 new immigrants move to cities of 100k or larger. More than half live in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal, and many of the remainder settle in the Golden Horseshoe and the 401 corridor.

https://moving2canada.com/news-and-f...olitan-areas/#

Those numbers are shifting, but the bulk are still moving to major urban centres.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I don't know if it would cost hundreds of billions. I think you'd incentivize CN and CP rail outside of the inner city and use those lines (likely raised) to build the high speed rail. But what you're saying is fair too. I was just saying what about ideas with less density added to our major cities.

Another idea that I've seen often, is that malls and apartments are often stacked on top of train lines in Asia. Many people transit only for work and everything else they need is self sustained in a small area. Chinook mall isn't even a passable concept of it. Here, we typically drive 2-3 minutes across loosely stacked retail segments of the city. There's gotta be a better way to do things.

I get that many Canadians will be pissed about less houses and more condos, but I honestly do think that mini retirement/care home cities and telework cities (sometimes corporation subsidized) would be a future that would make sense from an economy of scale situation. As much as I love the way we can do everything in our city, there are certain things that probably need to be spun out in an economies of scale situation to address issues and scalability issues for the major urban centres of Canada.



Sure, but that's why it needs to get figured out. Canada can't say no to growing populations going forward. We can't rely solely on maxing out education and have a ton of white collar population making $100K+ per year in Canada WFH remotely. That just incentivizes a large population to emigrate from Canada putting us back to step 1.

Obviously the long term goal is to set it up so that 30K population is more like 80-130K population. Not something grander like connecting Medicine Hat and Lethbridge to Calgary via bullet train.

Private developers will build anyways. I'm saying, maybe incentivize ways of creating Calgary bigger and wider like how Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby etc. are cluster cities. I've always assumed that Calgary CMA in 30-50+ years will be "Calgary" but have a 100-300K regions for Airdrie, Chestermere, Cochrane and 30-60K regions for Okotoks, Bragg Creek, Langdon etc.

But why??? That's a miserable existence. That stretch of BC is my idea of hell. So is living on top of a train station. They do that becuase they have to, not becuase they want to.

I get there are ways to densify Canada(and no shortage of examples around the world), my point is it doesn't provide benefits to happy living. Is the point to stretch every resource and ecosystem to the limit? Why? Who's life improves from that? How is that good for the planet?

Any dense city or country is going to rely on imports from elsewhere to function. If those resources are already stretched, how does adding more people fix that?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1679232660634312704

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But why??? That's a miserable existence. That stretch of BC is my idea of hell. So is living on top of a train station. They do that becuase they have to, not becuase they want to.

I get there are ways to densify Canada(and no shortage of examples around the world), my point is it doesn't provide benefits to happy living. Is the point to stretch every resource and ecosystem to the limit? Why? Who's life improves from that? How is that good for the planet?

Any dense city or country is going to rely on imports from elsewhere to function. If those resources are already stretched, how does adding more people fix that?

Well, the people already exist and you could argue the lives of the immigrants will improve immensely. Whether or not you think that comes at the expense of "happy living" for the average Canadian is probably something that can't (honestly) be shared in polite company. Remember, we don't necessarily need to add more people, we just need to add to the tax base.

I believe that we're now beginning to experience the results of decades of mismanagement and poor decision making by decades of consecutive short-sighted and inept governments; ones that didn't have the best interest of the country in mind, rather only their own electability. It didn't have to be this way, but we've been consistently out maneuvered and, frankly, outsmarted and we're now left with very few options... perhaps only one that is politically tenable, which as history has now shown, is the one we'll get. What's best for Canada be damned.

[Fuzz]

Ya, and sorry I don't mean to come across as anti-immigrant. I consider overpopulation a global problem, and there would obviously be a benefit for those coming from other countries to improve their lives.

I'm just arguing against the concept that Canada has all this excess capacity that can be used with no detrimental impacts. Boosting the economy maybe isn't the only goal we should consider.

[chemgear]

I recalled this article about governments still throwing money around and adding to the fire. Wonder if they are trying to scale back the spending and self created inflation at this point.


https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-...ight-1.1903991



Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government released a budget that sent Canada deeper into deficit with $43 billion (US$32 billion) in net new costs over six years, which it says aren’t inflationary. Expenditures are expected to reach 17.7 per cent of gross domestic product in the fiscal year that began April 1, compared with an average of 13.5 per cent in the 20 years before the pandemic.

To be sure, provincial governments have also ratcheted up spending relative to pre-pandemic levels, with some outright deploying cash to their citizens. Last year in Quebec, Premier Francois Legault twice sent checks to households, which were billed as an “anti-inflation shield” intended to help families cope with the rising cost of living.