Housing Bubble II: The Quest To Build Enough Homes Where People Actually Need Them

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by theman23

The “shitty little skybox” is also a lot more appealing when there are cost savings associated with the efficiencies of urban living. Instead a condo now costs twice what a SFH was going for when the Places to Grow Act was passed.

And yet every year millions of Canadians choose to live in a SFH in the suburbs despite those “efficiencies”.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet every year millions of Canadians choose to live in a SFH in the suburbs despite those “efficiencies”.

The problem here is that you are whining more than making a point. With the broad language, no one could possibly agree or disagree.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The problem here is that you are whining more than making a point. With the broad language, no one could possibly agree or disagree.

Indeed. What people 'want' isn't a strong argument for anything. Think seat belts and cigarettes for starters. The undeniable truth is that very successful families live in multi-unit buildings all around this planet. These are families that would be horrified at the prospect of being moved into a SFH where they couldn't walk everywhere they need to go or have immediate access to frequent transit. It would seem that many Canadians are suffering a severe case of indoctrination and they don't know it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Arrdeeharharharbour

Indeed. What people 'want' isn't a strong argument for anything. Think seat belts and cigarettes for starters. The undeniable truth is that very successful families live in multi-unit buildings all around this planet. These are families that would be horrified at the prospect of being moved into a SFH where they couldn't walk everywhere they need to go or have immediate access to frequent transit. It would seem that many Canadians are suffering a severe case of indoctrination and they don't know it.

Not sure about that most of the world would still prefer a SFH and driving everywhere. It's what most of them choose when they can afford it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet every year millions of Canadians choose to live in a SFH in the suburbs despite those “efficiencies”.

You mean tens of thousands. We don't even build more than 50k SFD annually. And that's great for people who can afford them. But we also have to house everybody else. Squeezing them into shoeboxes in the sky is not a great solution.

[Hecate]

Like around 80% of people would rather live in a single family home than a condo or apartment. People would like small private gardens and space for kids and pets to play and enjoy being outside. We should be pumping out small houses instead of shitty wood framed apartments where you can hear your neighbours taking a shit.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Like around 80% of people would rather live in a single family home than a condo or apartment. People would like small private gardens and space for kids and pets to play and enjoy being outside. We should be pumping out small houses instead of shitty wood framed apartments where you can hear your neighbours taking a shit.

Exactly. It’s hilarious when one has to listen to inner city dwellers pontificate on what they think the bulk of the populace wants, or more importantly, should be allowed to have.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And yet every year millions of Canadians choose to live in a SFH in the suburbs despite those “efficiencies”.

SFH are obviously preferable to most people, all things else being equal. And probably even with all things not being equal. Anyone who disagrees with this is a bit delusional. I'm just saying that our land use policies have been sold to us on the idea of densification as a way to build more economically and environmentally sustainable cities, but they haven't really done that. They've just made everything much more expensive and taken away options in the housing market.

[niwell]

I don't think it's a controversial statement that most people - if given the choice and economic means - would want a SFH. I'm guessing around 2/3rds, and at least a significant portion of the remaining would prefer ground-related multi-family as opposed to tall towers. Though that's more subjective. Problem is this whole thing is VERY broad.

However I'd hazard a guess that most of those people would rather be in something like this (if they prefer city life): https://maps.app.goo.gl/YYK7nr5Lrcq6UHLbA

Or this (if they want something more quiet/private): https://maps.app.goo.gl/DZKXg1Q2XSTFewQeA

Rather than this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iB7ovY1gS13jdLkr8


Despite the outward appearance the first example is interspersed with small apartments and at a somewhat higher density than the last - and it's on the lower density end of lowrise central Toronto neighbourhoods. It's a small sample size but everyone I know who's moved to the suburbs would have much rather remained in central Toronto (or Ottawa) if finances permitted.

While there are people who love living in towers many including myself would love to be able to buy a flat in something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JuLNwVopyf2RdtHz6

Or this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/h6RzeakxDbaHUGns9

And while I wouldn't personally want to live in something like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/afErxY8y476KdzMb7

I'd take it a million times over this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/RSsfBS87yd7nxQ748

[theman23]

Originally Posted by niwell

I'd take it a million times over this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/RSsfBS87yd7nxQ748

The problem is that a shoebox in the 905 like this is basically the only type of housing being built in the GTA these days that a young family can afford, and even then at a cost significantly greater than what a SFH would have cost 20 years ago.

[thewave46]

I suspect the bet is the lowering of expectations.

It's the locals who want single family detached housing. I mean, who could blame them? They probably want what they grew up with. That's the bar.

If the goal is to bet against the locals and keep the expectations low for those new to the country, a high population growth strategy and anti-development mentality is the way to do it.

When the bar is set at 'sharing a room with several other roommates', the single apartment is a joy comparatively. Obvious strategy: fuck the locals. The money's made its bet. It isn't the locals.

SFH for the rich, single-room apartments/condos for those who escape roommates, shared rooms for the Indentured Servants. Class structure re-imagined by property. The old British Gentry would be proud of the societal hierarchy their children rebuilt.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by theman23

The problem is that a shoebox in the 905 like this is basically the only type of housing being built in the GTA these days that a young family can afford, and even then at a cost significantly greater than what a SFH would have cost 20 years ago.

Yeah exactly - I was alluding to the fact that land use policies have essentially dictated this form of housing. In theory high density ground-related multi-family would be cheaper if the land cost portion were taken out of account.

Unfortunately I think we've gone down a path where there's so much capital tied up in high land costs it will be a very long road out. Even if urban growth boundaries were massively expanded/eliminated tomorrow (which they could be, at the stroke of a pen). And has been pointed out before, we wouldn't even have to touch the greenbelt for quite some time to do so.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by niwell

Unfortunately I think we've gone down a path where there's so much capital tied up in high land costs it will be a very long road out. Even if urban growth boundaries were massively expanded/eliminated tomorrow (which they could be, at the stroke of a pen). And has been pointed out before, we wouldn't even have to touch the greenbelt for quite some time to do so.

The greenbelt undoubtedly affects land prices though. It's a massive area that virtually envelops the GTA. It has made the greenfield land that is available more even valuable.

The same economic issues with incrementally drip-feeding upzoned land to the market apply to incrementally drip-feeding greenfield land to the market.

[harls]

Originally Posted by Hecate

We should be pumping out small houses instead of shitty wood framed apartments where you can hear your neighbours taking a shit.

I've got a condo rental property and they complain about a barking dog opposite of their unit. It's only during working hours, so I am thinking these tools got a dog and lock them in the house from 9 to 5.

Who the F does this to a dog?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Like around 80% of people would rather live in a single family home than a condo or apartment. People would like small private gardens and space for kids and pets to play and enjoy being outside. We should be pumping out small houses instead of shitty wood framed apartments where you can hear your neighbours taking a shit.

We should. But we don't. We've decided that detached homes should need 2000 sqft + a basement and at least 20 ft of setback for ornamentation. And nothing else is acceptable. So that means fewer detached homes at higher prices. And smaller living spaces for everybody else.

[GlassCity]

We put in urban containment boundaries but didn't adjust development opportunities in existing neighbourhoods accordingly. While sprawl hasn't been cut off entirely, it's still restricted and this gap hasn't been made up for with infill. This then compounds at a national level where even sprawl-happy cities just can't sprawl/build fast enough for their own growth those being priced out of other cities.

More apartments would be cheaper, bigger, and in shorter buildings if we just provided more opportunities for them.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We should. But we don't. We've decided that detached homes should need 2000 sqft + a basement and at least 20 ft of setback for ornamentation. And nothing else is acceptable. So that means fewer detached homes at higher prices. And smaller living spaces for everybody else.

This sort of issue is amplified in Ontario. Contrast the type of SFH's on the outskirts of a city in the Prairies or Atlantic Canada compared to Ontario and it's different. It tends to be smaller and use more basic materials.

Some of the housing on the outskirts of the GTA would be considered mansions in other parts of the country.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by harls

I've got a condo rental property and they complain about a barking dog opposite of their unit. It's only during working hours, so I am thinking these tools got a dog and lock them in the house from 9 to 5.

Who the F does this to a dog?

From what I hear from friends, lots of people. Especially those who got a dog during Covid and now have to go back into the office.

[harls]

Originally Posted by whatnext

From what I hear from friends, lots of people. Especially those who got a dog during Covid and now have to go back into the office.

Insane. Poor dogs.

I would never get a dog in a condo. Poor animals.

[Arrdeeharharharbour]

Originally Posted by harls

I've got a condo rental property and they complain about a barking dog opposite of their unit. It's only during working hours, so I am thinking these tools got a dog and lock them in the house from 9 to 5.

Who the F does this to a dog?

As the other poster said, lots of people. We suffered a barking dog for years at our last house. Covid was a blessing in one way because the neighbours were home full time and the dog was quiet. Complaints to the city were a waste of time as the owners convinced Animal Control that the dog had anxiety and didn't bark very long after they left... which was completely untrue. During the warmer months they would leave an upstairs window open while they were away and the dog would stand at the window and bark for hours on end. Now that we're in a condo we don't have to worry about this as condo rules would have a barking dog removed post haste. I'm surprised your condo doesn't have a similar rule.