Cost of housing in Canada

[mariomike]

Shitboxes in otherwise normal neighborhoods are now the norm in Canadian cities and quickly spreading.

These "shitboxes" would have been $800,000 each. ( See link. )

But, the city said, "no dice".

Ratepayers associations have some influence at City Hall. There is also the "YellowBelt" to consider when it comes to zoning regulations.

Affordable multiplexes in Etobicoke? Not if the neighbours have a say
Nothing kills the dream of budget-friendly housing faster than NIMBYism

https://torontolife.com/real-estate/multiplex-in-etobicoke-nimby/

It’s the latest in multiplex mayhem: a modest proposal for a pair of three-storey condo buildings on Kipling were kiboshed after officials bowed to the wrath of local homeowners.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Shitboxes in otherwise normal neighborhoods are now the norm in Canadian cities and quickly spreading.

252 Sierra Nevada Close SW: The Ugly Truth Behind Calgary's Densification Push and What It Means for Your Home

Calgary’s citywide rezoning is transforming Signal Hill. If you live near 252 Sierra Nevada Close SW, your property value could drop by at least $25,000. Here’s what local homeowners need to know.

www.calgarylistings.com

You will own nothing and be happy.

Pretty sure three people will happy because they own townhouse condos with viable rental suites. Last I checked that's not nothing.

It's funny. I'm in favour of urban and suburban densification and have made no attempt to hide that. But in this specific case- I think the planning department got it wrong and the NIMBY's have a point, to a certain extent. That lot isn't big enough for what they put in, there isn't enough parking, and the design aesthetics make no attempt to fit in. Good principles applied poorly make for bad outcomes

That being said, there is no end to the amusement of supposed freemarket conservatives getting their nickers in a knot over deregulation stripping them of their "right" to tell other land owners what they can and cannot to with their own property.

 

[Quirky]

Once upon a time it was called a "starter home" not a shitbox.

Those shitboxes don’t belong in established single family home residential neighborhoods. Especially in that article example. You want to intermix single and multiplexes in new areas, fine.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Its called 'intensification' or to use another phase, 'the 15min city' - meaning that you should have access to everything you need within a 15min timeline duration to use public transportation to get there.

I think you mean densification ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

That being said, there is no end to the amusement of supposed freemarket conservatives getting their nickers in a knot over deregulation stripping them of their "right" to tell other land owners what they can and cannot to with their own property.

Agreed.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Shitboxes in otherwise normal neighborhoods are now the norm in Canadian cities and quickly spreading.

252 Sierra Nevada Close SW: The Ugly Truth Behind Calgary's Densification Push and What It Means for Your Home

Calgary’s citywide rezoning is transforming Signal Hill. If you live near 252 Sierra Nevada Close SW, your property value could drop by at least $25,000. Here’s what local homeowners need to know.

www.calgarylistings.com

You will own nothing and be happy.

I'm a little familiar with that area, but not specifically that street. There is a vocal opposition to the current mayor (they even tried to have her recalled, an object lesson for the separation referendum folks), a lot of it tied to real estate, especially from developers. As to whomever made that page, a couple of discrepancies; the neighbourhood in which that lot is located is not Signal Hill, but Sienna Hills, though I imagine that some residents of the area prefer to refer to the area as Signal Hill because that adjacent neighbourhood is more higher end. However that particular street is not near the boundary to Signal Hill. That area was developed in the 1990s. Though there is nothing wrong with it, I wouldn't live there, it just doesn't suit my personal tastes.

It surprises me that they are starting to look at thirty year old properties for "in-fill development". That's what it's called here. Buying a detached home for the lot, demo the house and put up an attached structure. Five years ago, when prices were a bit better, it would have been an attached side by side on a standard width lot. Now, I'm seeing triples. However most of that was from stock that had been originally built on anywhere from before the war up to maybe the 1960s. A couple of years ago, I happened to be in a neighbourhood where a few of us (we moved out of shacks together) rented a house in the late 1970s. We were once offered it and could have bought it for around 30k. When I was by there a couple of years ago the lot was now occupied by two homes (attached); one was for sale at $1.3 mil.

As for the property referred to in that objection, there is one current listing a few doors away at +800k. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing spectacular. It's a 750k to 800k neighbourhood, there is a listing a few streets away looking for 1 mil+ but, personally, I think they are pushing it. However that is the mentality of many who hope to make a profit on their home. You can sell for more than paid, but you'll have to pay more to get a new place to live. Or you can demo and put three structures on the lot and sell each one for the going neighbourhood rate, hopefully ending up with a couple hundred grand and a mortgage free home.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well, this should be interesting....

The extremely bad housing record of Canada's new housing minister​

As Vancouver mayor, Gregor Robertson oversaw an explosion in unaffordability unlike any ever seen

When Gregor Robertson first became Vancouver mayor in 2008, he promised affordable housing, fewer drug overdoses, lower crime and a total end to homelessness by 2015.

All of those problems would become catastrophically worse under his watch. But given that Robertson was just appointed federal housing minister on Tuesday, it’s notable that his most iconic failure was on the issue of housing affordability.

On Robertson’s first day as mayor, the average detached Vancouver home cost the inflation adjusted equivalent of $942,000.

It was the most unaffordable jurisdiction in Canada, but Robertson took the helm of a city in which it was still technically feasible for average Vancouverites to own property. According to RBC estimates from the time, the average Vancouver household could still feasibly purchase a townhouse, although it would consume 50 per cent of their income in mortgage costs.

When Robertson left the mayor’s office in 2018, the average cost of a detached house in Vancouver had doubled.

Adjusting for inflation, the benchmark house price on Robertson’s last day was $1.8 million. Across Robertson’s decade-long tenure, the average Vancouver house had surged in price by an average of $84,000 per year, or $230 every 24 hours.

Rents and condo prices had similarly attained record highs, to the point where the City of Vancouver was no longer just the most unaffordable jurisdiction in Canada; it was now one of the most unaffordable cities on earth.

According to a ranking at the time by the California-based Center for Demographics and Policy, Vancouver was now second only to Hong Kong in terms of world cities where home ownership was most out of reach for locals.

FIRST READING: The extremely bad housing record of Canada's new housing minister

As Vancouver mayor, Gregor Robertson oversaw an explosion in unaffordability unlike any ever seen

nationalpost.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

That being said, there is no end to the amusement of supposed freemarket conservatives getting their nickers in a knot over deregulation stripping them of their "right" to tell other land owners what they can and cannot to with their own property.

Free market conservatives have two dogs in the fight. The overarching factor governing real estate cost is location, which is more than its 8-digit grid. One dog is the right to dispose of one's own property. The other dog is the right to enjoy it. "Value" and "character" are both in the mix.

"Blight" has many forms. And it's one thing for a committee of residents to hold and agree to be bound by plebiscites on changes in their neighbourhood, and another for outsiders to impose changes to suit their own agendas at someone else's expense.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, this should be interesting....

The extremely bad housing record of Canada's new housing minister​

Instead of being in a position to push off some of the blame on provincial and federal governments for lack of (mostly financial) support, he is now the go-to face of the latter. He managed to cheerfully acknowledge that when interviewed. Now we'll see what kind of pudding is on offer.

 

[Quirky]

As for the property referred to in that objection, there is one current listing a few doors away at +800k. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing spectacular. It's a 750k to 800k neighbourhood, there is a listing a few streets away looking for 1 mil+ but, personally, I think they are pushing it. However that is the mentality of many who hope to make a profit on their home. You can sell for more than paid, but you'll have to pay more to get a new place to live. Or you can demo and put three structures on the lot and sell each one for the going neighbourhood rate, hopefully ending up with a couple hundred grand and a mortgage free home.

They've taken one house that was owned by a rich person and now turned it into 3 houses now owned by 3 rich people. How does this increase affordability, it only adds further strain to infrastructure. I'm not against redevelopment, infills, etc, but there's a time and place.

Its called 'intensification' or to use another phase, 'the 15min city' - meaning that you should have access to everything you need within a 15min timeline duration to use public transportation to get there.

With Calgary's world class transit system? Think of the money you'll save, instead of having coffee in the morning you get a good dose of adrenaline from being on your toes around the meth heads eyeing you up.

 

[Blackadder1916]

They've taken one house that was owned by a rich person and now turned it into 3 houses now owned by 3 rich people. How does this increase affordability, it only adds further strain to infrastructure. I'm not against redevelopment, infills, etc, but there's a time and place.

That's not a "rich person" house in Calgary. It's a middle class neighbourhood.

https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/28090090/44-sierra-nevada-rise-calgary-signal-hill#view=stats

Average Income

Individual $67.3k
Family $163.6k

And this is what the neighbourhood looks like. There is already multiunit housing (condos - 450k to 500k range) in the area.

With Calgary's world class transit system? Think of the money you'll save, instead of having coffee in the morning you get a good dose of adrenaline from being on your toes around the meth heads eyeing you up.

Calgary Transit could be better, but it's not too bad. I use it quite often. After reaching senior citizen stage, I found one of the best deals was the Calgary Transit Seniors Pass. For a little over $150 a year, I can travel unlimited. It's especially useful if I'm going downtown, don't have to worry about parking and since they instituted an airport express route what used to be a $65 taxi fare from my home to the airport is now exchanged for about an additional half hour to get to the airport.

 

[PrairieFella]

Those shitboxes don’t belong in established single family home residential neighborhoods. Especially in that article example. You want to intermix single and multiplexes in new areas, fine.

Neighbourhoods change, they aren't museums. Densification is a good thing. Perish the thought of the Poors living in their rowhouse amongst the McMansions.

 

[Quirky]

Neighbourhoods change, they aren't museums. Densification is a good thing. Perish the thought of the Poors living in their rowhouse amongst the McMansions.

But poor people should be able to live in nice neighborhoods too!!

That's not a "rich person" house in Calgary. It's a middle class neighbourhood.

There is a house on that street that's going for $800k, that's the new norm now for a middle class home on the average salary you listed? How does putting up 6, 7, 800k townhouses help affordability while simultaneously reducing the value of everyone elses home in the area, along with causing issues with parking, infrastructure, snow removal, etc?

 

[PrairieFella]

Cities can grow and become even more financially unsustainable with infinite sprawl or they can densify. If the cost you don't get two free parking spots subsidized by the city to park on, it's a good trade off. What can I say, I'm a conservative when it comes to housing policy and the design of cities. Conservatives are right on board with tradition, right?

 

[Eaglelord17]

If densification didn’t happen there would be no cities in the country only a bunch of scattered farm houses on 100+ acre lots.

There are some very valid concerns with some densification though. In this case 6 house holds with 3 parking spots in the suburbs isn’t a good thing. Should be one per house at the minimum. Infrastructure is a other potential issue as you only have so much capacity in a area before you need to start doing serious upgrades.

 

[Blackadder1916]

There is a house on that street that's going for $800k, that's the new norm now for a middle class home on the average salary you listed? How does putting up 6, 7, 800k townhouses help affordability while simultaneously reducing the value of everyone elses home in the area, along with causing issues with parking, infrastructure, snow removal, etc?

The entrepreneurs who put up "infill 6, 7, 800k townhouses" don't give a rat's ass about "helping affordability", they just want to turn a profit. In Calgary they do that by buying an 800k property (determined by lot size and a neighborhood that fits someone who will pay 800k for a home), demos the building that's there, puts 900k to 1.2 mil into building three (or more) attached houses on the lot and sells each for 800K (because the neighbourhood will attract people who will pay that for a house). The "legal suites" for each house are a new wrinkle and are marketed as a way for the new homeowner to cover the mortgage by renting out the suite.

 

[Quirky]

The entrepreneurs who put up "infill 6, 7, 800k townhouses" don't give a rat's ass about "helping affordability"

No, they don’t. They are just building based off zoning provided by cities who get tax money from the Feds. There is no such thing as building “affordable housing” otherwise builders would go bankrupt.

 

[Eaglelord17]

No, they don’t. They are just building based off zoning provided by cities who get tax money from the Feds. There is no such thing as building “affordable housing” otherwise builders would go bankrupt.

Which is why the government should create a crown corporation to do it.

50 year cost neutral goal so rent would be low. Make the apartments reasonable sizes for single and family units (not these shoe boxes that they are marketing at the moment). Make the people living in them determined by lottery, any one can apply, no criminal record allowed to start. No subletting allowed.

This would start addressing the cost at the low end of the market which there is still demand for, just the builders won’t address unless forced or until the high end demand is filled.

It would also start driving builders to build better units and drive down prices as they would be competing with much lower cost new builds which are reasonable sizes.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Cities can grow and become even more financially unsustainable

I keep coming across this "financially unsustainable" myth. Yet in the US there are movements in several cities to absorb outlying (less dense) suburbs. Why? For the tax base - to redirect some of the suburban taxes to serve needs of the denser urban cores.

Ideologically-driven social policy is creating bigger problems (eg. street people) that cost a lot more to fix than to prevent. Compensation increases above inflation are squeezing out other spending. Some councils are preoccupied with things which are not really core functions of municipal government (which are, mainly, boring old infrastructure). And some waste a lot of money subsidizing the capital and operational costs of underused entertainment and leisure facilities and transit.

 

[PrairieFella]

You're completely backwards. There is no evidence for your claims. Downtown subsidizes the suburbs, espeicially the modern mcmansion of cul de sac ones, which don't pay nearly enough taxes to pay for the infrastructure they require. It's been well documented by city planners and other experts in the field. There is no movement to absorb suburbs, it's just a consequence of the out of control urban sprawl in the USA.

But yes, let's blame the Bums for crumbling infrastructure, not building too much, too soon with a lack of tax base.

Take a look at this heatmap of Edmonton where you can see a ton of the revenue downtown and most of the rest along densified corridors. A notable contributor is the West Ed Mall.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/164roqj/map_of_citys_tax_income_councillor_salvador

Here's some further reading.

The Real Reason Your City Has No Money

Problems have solutions. Predicaments have outcomes. We're in a predicament.

www.strongtowns.org