Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton
The problem with rental housing is the time it takes to pay back the investment. The president of Effort Trust recently said the Hamilton market was really tough because 'rents are so low'. While most of us are thankful for that aspect of Hamilton's housing market, it doesn't help get things built.
I wonder what the main difference was in the economy in the 1960s to 70s that allowed such massive housing developments that were rentals? I know there were way looser rules around development then, but that can't be the whole story. It had to be easier to borrow money then on the basis of future rental income.
|
I've often asked myself the very same question and I've actually written a paper on it for one of my university classes. The 1960's and increasingly in the 1970's was a time where much of the baby-boom generation were reaching maturity and due to many factors including education, sexual liberation, income, and a heightening of the average age of marriage transitional housing (i.e. apartments) was in a HUGE demand. The previous generation generally got married right after high school as post-secondary education was only for the wealthy and careers could be had simply by showing up. It was much less culturally acceptable to have multiple sexual partners, and considered taboo if you were single and living on your own therefore apartments weren't in demand and if they were built it was to a much smaller scale. Also, during the 1960's and 1970's society was drenched in the idea of science fiction and futurism. Movies, books, magazines, television shows, and comics depicted the future as predominately urban with almost every single human dwelling in a massively high rise apartment/condominium. Futuristic idealism can be widely recognized within Hamilton. For example, acres of Victorian buildings were demolished for the creation of Jackson Square which at the time was considered a beacon for the future of architecture.
Prev
Linear Mode
