No sign of a slowdown in Burlington

[fastcarsfreedom]

I'm pretty sure I didn't point to Greenburg specifically, however the article is itself a vehicle for advancing Hume's agenda. The inclusion of "slum" is merely for effect--otherwise the title would've been "the suburbanization of poverty".

In the zeal to rail against my rebuttal almost everyone who has posted so far has chosen to ignore the majority of my arguments and focus instead on the manner in which I made my arguments. As for backing up Hume's credentials, I would suggest trying a different tactic than selling him based on his affiliation with The Star--those who are familiar with my posts here will know that will in fact have the opposite effect where I'm concerned.

As RePinion stated, most urbanists have a distaste for what they view as the lack of sustainability in the suburbs--hence Greenburg (and the majority of posters who support his viewpoints in this Forum) aren't suggesting solutions to this "elephant in the room" but merely awaiting their "I told you so" moment. Most active posters here will note that I have always shared my viewpoints and opinions regarding an urban renaissance as opposed to performing a grave dance.

[coalminecanary]

Well, part of the problem is that the suburban development style is not one that easily supports mixed zoning, human scale development and the other things necessary to make it a more viable place to live in the coming years which are going to be energy-scarce (or at least energy-expensive). So it's difficult to get excited about long term potential there, especially when we are having a hard time convincing governments to invest in existing infrastructure that WILL translate well into a future of higher energy prices (i.e. dense urban areas that already exist).

I think the way we can look at the 'solution' is to start by focusing on the regions that are easier to transform into livable communities: urban areas. Eventually, the layout of suburbs will change. More walking is going to become the reality when we have to choose between buying gas or bread. I can totally understand a lack of excitement regarding solutions to the upcoming problems in the suburbs (suburban infill?), especially when excitement about urban infill is mostly ignored.

[HAMRetrofit]

I really think that housing downturns will be driven by cultural changes. Not environmental and not energy, although I think they could be contributing factors in the cultural change. I can still see shipping and transportation costs decreasing in the future. Commodities pricing will be what increases. In anticipation for the change I see that social services be better distributed through the city into the suburbs. They have a monopoly over downtowns right now. Policy changes regarding land use within the suburbs will need to change allowing retrofitting more living units into single and semi detached homes. Policies regarding driveway usage and vehicle ownerships will be dissolved. New homes will eventually not be mandated to have garages or driveways. More public transit will be needed to be run into the suburbs increasing area rating for transit. Big box developments will need to have capacity for social housing. I think we need to be realistic about what we are going to need to do with these places.


Fewer of us plan to buy homes: RBC

March 05, 2008
The Canadian Press
TORONTO (Mar 5, 2008)

A Royal Bank of Canada study points to "a potential shift in the Canadian home buying landscape," with purchasing intentions the lowest in years.

The bank's annual home ownership survey found the proportion of Canadians planning to buy a home in the next two years has dropped by five percentage points from a year ago to 23 per cent.

The survey released yesterday found 52 per cent of those polled would buy now rather than wait until next year, down from 58 per cent last year, "suggesting a potential slowdown in the housing market," RBC said.

Eighty-five per cent said a home is a good investment, down from 90 per cent in 2007, although up from 76 per cent a decade ago.

"Considering the flurry of activity we've seen over the last few years, this year's results definitely signal a change," stated Catherine Adams, RBC's vice-president of home equity financing. "Canadians continue to be generally very optimistic about our housing market and it's merely the degree of optimism which is down from last year."

The online survey last month of 3,023 adults, which claims a 95 per cent likelihood of representing the whole population within 1.8 percentage points, found 56 per cent expect housing prices to rise, compared with 59 per cent last year.

Adams insisted that Canadians do not appear to be heading towards a housing crunch.

[coalminecanary]

I think that energy prices are going to be the main driver of cultural change in the very near future. Oil prices are not going to go down. And everything we eat and everything we do requires oil at the input end. These are going to be, as they say, "interesting times".

[HAMRetrofit]

Oil is just a fuel. It can come from anywhere. Peak oil and Global warming are just going to fuel development of new energy projects: nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, tar sands, big wind, big hydro, big solar, biofuel, and geothermal. We are seeing mega projects in Dubai and China preparing for this future. Economies of scale and supply and demand is what drive energy costs. Energy companies don't care if it is coming from oil or cornmeal. I am so sick of hearing that peak oil will drive the end of suburbia because that argument is out lunch. Raising environmental awareness may, but running out of fuel will not.

[coalminecanary]

I don't want to get into a whole peak oil argument here, but it's not a simple solution to count on these amazing new technologies. Oil is such a high density portable energy source we will have difficulty replacing it. My worry is not about keeping cars running, it's about keeping ourselves fed. Our industrial agriculture scheme requires enormous petroleum inputs before the food even gets shipped or processed. Oil based fertilizers and pesticides plus the energy required to machine the land and bring fresh water - that's a lot of energy requirements. And while we may have alternatives to gas engines, we may have alternative electricity sources for our homes -- we do not have alternatives to these oil based pesticides and fertilizers which will allow us to grow food at the scale we do now.

The reality we will all be facing is a more localized economy, for energy, for food, for everything.

The scenery WILL change. How and by how much is anyone's guess, but I think that holding out for technology to keep us running "business as usual" is dangerous.

[coalminecanary]

So yeah... peak oil doesn't scare me but peak food does :-p

[HAMRetrofit]

Anyways depleting real estate in the suburbs will be the least of our concerns if new technology is not developed.

Starvation, war, anarchy, and disease will.

[coalminecanary]

True

[fastcarsfreedom]

Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

Home ownership is one of the main driver's of wealth in our society, therefore it is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.

[markbarbera]

Building permits surprise with January drop
Last Updated: Thursday, March 6, 2008 | 12:51 PM ET
CBC News

The value of building permits fell unexpectedly in January, slipping below the $6-billion mark for the first time since April 2007, Statistics Canada said Thursday.

Canadian municipalities issued $5.9 billion worth of building permits for January, down 2.9 per cent from the $6 billion in permits issued in December 2007.

It was the indicator's third straight monthly drop, Statistics Canada said. Analysts had expected permit values would increase by about one per cent.

A drop in residential construction permit values outweighed an increase in the non-residential sector, the agency said.

The report provided further evidence that Canada's housing market is losing some of its steam. The Canadian Real Estate Association has already reported that January home sales in the country's 20 biggest markets were down eight per cent year-over-year. Average resale prices, while still rising, are not growing as fast as they had been in 2007.

"Despite the recent declines, building sites should remain busy in the first part of 2008, since construction intentions were strong in 2007," Statistics Canada added. "Building permits are a leading indicator for construction activity."

Residential sector permits dropped by 13.9 per cent to $3.3 billion, due to a 26.9 per cent drop in multi-family housing. Building intentions also decreased in the single-family component, dropping by 5.4 per cent.

Non-residential construction, which includes commercial, industrial and institutional building projects, ended two months of declines. Permits in the sector rose by 16.4 per cent to $2.5 billion.

[HAMRetrofit]

Originally Posted by fastcarsfreedom

Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

Home ownership is one of the main driver's of wealth in our society, therefore it is something to be encouraged, not discouraged.

Correction homes are property. Property is one of the main drivers of wealth in our society. That includes everything from condos to factories to farms. Homes are nothing special compared to all other forms of property out there to invest in.

[RePinion]

^ Indeed they are, as homes are the only high value property that the average consumer will ever own. Moreover, in the most basic economic terms, shelter is one of the three basic expenditures that all individuals must attend to, along with food and clothing. Once housing, generally one's primary expenditure, is secure, one is free (or freer) to invest in other sectors of the economy - stocks, bonds, non-essential consumer goods, etc. Home ownership is key to economic risk-taking, which, in turn, is key to economic growth. Rental-based economies tend to segregate meaningful economic growth in a small segment of society - the land-owning class. When home ownership becomes accessible to a wider spectrum of society, wealth tends to spread beyond the traditional elites as well. Witness the exponential growth of the North American economy from the 1950s onwards, when structured finance schemes made mortgages and thus home ownership a viable option for segments of society which never would have dreamed of it before.

The importance of home ownership to healthy economies is generally considered irrefutable.

[flar]

Yep, that's why the housing crisis in the States is such a big deal. People bought houses with no money down then used their equity to buy all kinds of consumer goods. Now their houses are losing value and nobody can pay for anything. They never really owned anything, but couldn't resist the temptation of lenders treating their homes as assets.

[fastcarsfreedom]

Sadly Flar, it's not even so much that the homes suddenly lost value, but their value (particularly in some markets) was grossly overstated--leaving a lot of people with homes that are worth far less than the debt incurred to buy them--which in turn has led to real decreases in property value and further erosion of equity--it's a vicious circle that is going to take some time to correct.

[highwater]

Here's a link to an interesting blog chronicling the US housing crisis as it is playing out in Irvine CA:

http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/

He/she has some interesting thoughts on the psychology of viewing a home as an investment:

"One of the biggest fallacies pushed on the general public was the notion that residential real estate was a great investment. This idea caused people to view houses as an investment and treat them accordingly. When the participants in a housing market perceive houses as an investment, they will more easily default on the loan than if they viewed the house solely as a family home. People develop emotional attachments to their family homes, and they will sacrifice much in order to keep it. People behave in a more businesslike manner when they view a house as an investment, and they are willing to give up the house if the investment does not perform as planned. Many people when faced with the reality that house prices were not going to go up and payments were going to continue to cause losses decided to stop making payments and let their investment go into foreclosure. Financially, it was the correct decision given the alternative of continuing to make payments on a losing investment. When the “Great American Dream” of home ownership was tainted by investment motives, it became a nightmare for all concerned."