Cost of housing in Canada

[YZT580]

My only point of contention with this is the notion that housing supply needs to grow in low cost areas.

Those low cost areas have a low cost because there isn't a job market there to support a large enough population to make it expensive. A bunch of "cheap" houses in Timmons doesn't help when people can't get jobs to pay for those houses.

Density is the solution for our cities. More density, in units designed to appeal to young professionals and small families.

Would be cheaper and more conducive to families to establish new businesses outside of those costly regions and spread the population out. Density comes with its own set of problems. Jane st. in Toronto comes to mind. Families need places to walk run and play that are safe and density removes much of that safety factor.

 

[Furniture]

Would be cheaper and more conducive to families to establish new businesses outside of those costly regions and spread the population out. Density comes with its own set of problems. Jane st. in Toronto comes to mind. Families need places to walk run and play that are safe and density removes much of that safety factor.

Sure, but it's better for many businesses to be where the people are. That's why businesses tend to be in or move to, large population centers, and since the work is there, people tend to move where the businesses are.

I'll also disagree that density is the issue when it comes to the downtown problems in Canadian cities. Generational poverty, and community's attitudes toward crime tend to be the bigger issues regarding safety.

Westboro in Ottawa is far more dense than Barrhaven or Stitsville, yet it's still considered a nice and safe part of the city. Density doesn't have to mean 20 story apartment buildings everywhere, it can mean nice apartments/condos in low-rise buildings, with parks and walkable shopping, cafes, pubs, etc...

 

[mariomike]

Would be cheaper and more conducive to families to establish new businesses outside of those costly regions and spread the population out. Density comes with its own set of problems. Jane st. in Toronto comes to mind. Families need places that are safe and density removes much of that safety factor.

I've been retired for over 15 years, so you guys are likely more familiar the neighbourhoods than I am.

The low density neighbourhhods are in the "yellow-belt".

Aka the "Residential Detatched" ( RD ) zone.

10.20 Residential Detached Zone (RD) - In the RD zone, a dwelling unit is permitted in the following residential building types: (A) Detached House.

City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended (Office Consolidation)

I live in Swansea. A lake, a river, and a pond are our natural boundaries. The terrain is hilly, with ravines, and the roads are winding with many mature trees.

Our Ratepayer's Association ( Swansea ) put it this way,

"Endeavouring to maintain the cultural, environmental, and political health of the community."


https://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter10_20.htm

 

[foresterab]

Would be cheaper and more conducive to families to establish new businesses outside of those costly regions and spread the population out. Density comes with its own set of problems. Jane st. in Toronto comes to mind. Families need places to walk run and play that are safe and density removes much of that safety factor.

While new employment options outside the core areas is ideal there is also the issue of the family transition and dual income needs. How many CAF members have struggles with household finances due to a member being posted to a cheaper, but lower employment area? It does no good if you're making the same wage but 1/2 the wage earners are unable to find work...or if work only at minimum wage.

It's also the whole struggle with boom economies in the resource sector and why many operations went to fly in workers...great if the main tradesperson/laborer is making big dollars...but is there work for both? In my experience it's a rare couple that has meaningful, quality employment options outside of major centers.

That being said there are many smaller cities and moderate sized cities that do offer meaningful opportunities that seem to be avoid. I'm looking at the Regina/Red Deer/Prince George/Thunder Bay type places. The trade off is that for provincial jobs or federal jobs many (most?) are centered around the respective capital regions and given the size of the public service employment in Canada I view this as a good starting place to distribute work more widely....depending on the nature of the work of course. When I see field based positions, with field work components to their jobs...arguing that they can effectively live 3 hours from the work area...no bueno. A data entry clerk....many more options.

 

[YZT580]

Sure, but it's better for many businesses to be where the people are. That's why businesses tend to be in or move to, large population centers, and since the work is there, people tend to move where the businesses are.

I'll also disagree that density is the issue when it comes to the downtown problems in Canadian cities. Generational poverty, and community's attitudes toward crime tend to be the bigger issues regarding safety.

Westboro in Ottawa is far more dense than Barrhaven or Stitsville, yet it's still considered a nice and safe part of the city. Density doesn't have to mean 20 story apartment buildings everywhere, it can mean nice apartments/condos in low-rise buildings, with parks and walkable shopping, cafes, pubs, etc...

it could but it generally doesn't. Developers are squeezing in as many units as they can possibly manage. The new Glendale development in St. Catharines for example wants to put 23 stories on the flight path into the airport and has applied for an exemption that far exceeds the local limits. Builders pay compensation in lieu of putting in parks and playgrounds. Guess what, recent studies have revealed that kids that don't get outside to play and run around outside of recess are further behind the learning curve than those who do. Kids that don't progress end up producing generational poverty as you put it. Give high density some time and crime rates will increase. And perhaps birthrates have decreased partially because it is hard to want to raise children when the view out the bedroom window is your neighbour's adjacent brick wall less than 8 feet away and the backyard consists of an 12X12 artificial cedar deck and a similar sized area of burnt grass/dandelions.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Sounds like boosting supply and doing nothing to undermine the market value of residential real estate, which all parties favour in one way or another, will do nothing to make housing more affordable.

Terry Glavin: What if our housing crisis can't be fixed?

No easy way to return Canada's residential real estate markets to 'normal'

nationalpost.com

I can cut the cost of housing overnight with a couple quick laws. The unspoken part would be that people would lose equity and the government is more afraid of that. Those people with the equity vote in high numbers, and all the politicians are also in that category and would be voting against their personal best interests.

Right now they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, which isn't a option. They want the prices to stay high yet some how have the average Canadian afford them, hence the changes to try and make the mortgages 30 years, etc.

To get supply to the point it will start reducing costs significantly will be very difficult. We took in 20+ years of immigrants in 5. We cannot build quick enough to correct that without some drastic measures they aren’t going to enact.

We still can’t even get them to admit they screwed up in how many people were brought in such a short amount of time, let alone pausing immigration until things balance out.

 

[Furniture]

it could but it generally doesn't. Developers are squeezing in as many units as they can possibly manage. The new Glendale development in St. Catharines for example wants to put 23 stories on the flight path into the airport and has applied for an exemption that far exceeds the local limits. Builders pay compensation in lieu of putting in parks and playgrounds.

Because the markets, influenced by regulations, encourage them to do so. If they aren't allowed to pay a fine rather than put in playgrounds and parks, then they will do what they have to do.

Also, that isn't the kind of development I'm talking about. There will always be a place for high rise development, but there are lots of smaller buildings being build all over the country as well. We likely need to accept the reality that there is only so far out a city can grow before it becomes impossible to expand farther. We are already seeing it in newer suburbs where the lawns are essentially postage stamp sized, with massive homes built almost on top of each other.

Guess what, recent studies have revealed that kids that don't get outside to play and run around outside of recess are further behind the learning curve than those who do. Kids that don't progress end up producing generational poverty as you put it.

Kids can play in parks, they have done it for generations already... As I said before, government can fix the no parks/no playgrounds issues by not allowing developers to pay their way out of building them, so they can squeeze in a few more units.

Generation poverty exists in places with lots of room to run as well. I grew up a mile outside of a hamlet of 300, in the smallest province in the country. I saw plenty of generational poverty there too...

Give high density some time and crime rates will increase. And perhaps birthrates have decreased partially because it is hard to want to raise children when the view out the bedroom window is your neighbour's adjacent brick wall less than 8 feet away and the backyard consists of an 12X12 artificial cedar deck and a similar sized area of burnt grass/dandelions.

You have a very dystopian view of cities. Not all cities are the bad parts of Toronto...

 

[YZT580]

Because the markets, influenced by regulations, encourage them to do so. If they aren't allowed to pay a fine rather than put in playgrounds and parks, then they will do what they have to do.

Also, that isn't the kind of development I'm talking about. There will always be a place for high rise development, but there are lots of smaller buildings being build all over the country as well. We likely need to accept the reality that there is only so far out a city can grow before it becomes impossible to expand farther. We are already seeing it in newer suburbs where the lawns are essentially postage stamp sized, with massive homes built almost on top of each other.


Kids can play in parks, they have done it for generations already... As I said before, government can fix the no parks/no playgrounds issues by not allowing developers to pay their way out of building them, so they can squeeze in a few more units.

Generation poverty exists in places with lots of room to run as well. I grew up a mile outside of a hamlet of 300, in the smallest province in the country. I saw plenty of generational poverty there too...


You have a very dystopian view of cities. Not all cities are the bad parts of Toronto...

so true. It isn't just Toronto. There is Vancouver, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, even Victoria which is definitely not a large city. The list goes on. Cramming more people into a smaller area is a recipe for social unrest down the line. Everyone can't expect to live on 10 acres with a mule but providing 12 to 1500 sq. ft. on a 50 by 140 ft. lot is doable. But first you have to balance intake with development. That should be the focus of every discussion on housing. Once that is accomplished, the client will decide whether he wants to live in a condo/highrise, a town house or a detached on a decent lot. But the balancing has to come first.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Everyone can't expect to live on 10 acres with a mule

And we don't. We demand 40 acres.

 

[lenaitch]

I've been retired for over 15 years, so you guys are likely more familiar the neighbourhoods than I am.

The low density neighbourhhods are in the "yellow-belt".

Aka the "Residential Detatched" ( RD ) zone.


City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended (Office Consolidation)
I live in Swansea. A lake, a river, and a pond are our natural boundaries. The terrain is hilly, with ravines, and the roads are winding with many mature trees.

Our Ratepayer's Association ( Swansea ) put it this way,

"Endeavouring to maintain the cultural, environmental, and political health of the community."


City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended (Office Consolidation)
View attachment 88297View attachment 88298

And it's your type of neighbourhood that developers covet, and developers influence politicians whether we like to admit it or not. There are 'urbanists' who argue that a detached SFH should not exist in the core city.

it could but it generally doesn't. Developers are squeezing in as many units as they can possibly manage. The new Glendale development in St. Catharines for example wants to put 23 stories on the flight path into the airport and has applied for an exemption that far exceeds the local limits. Builders pay compensation in lieu of putting in parks and playgrounds. Guess what, recent studies have revealed that kids that don't get outside to play and run around outside of recess are further behind the learning curve than those who do. Kids that don't progress end up producing generational poverty as you put it. Give high density some time and crime rates will increase. And perhaps birthrates have decreased partially because it is hard to want to raise children when the view out the bedroom window is your neighbour's adjacent brick wall less than 8 feet away and the backyard consists of an 12X12 artificial cedar deck and a similar sized area of burnt grass/dandelions.

The Ontario government has significantly weakened the 'social benefit' requirements of developers, in some cases limited development charges (which municipalities use to pay for silly things like roads and infrastructure) and has even said they won't support low-rise in their density requirement plans.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I've been retired for over 15 years, so you guys are likely more familiar the neighbourhoods than I am.

The low density neighbourhhods are in the "yellow-belt".

Aka the "Residential Detatched" ( RD ) zone.


City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended (Office Consolidation)
I live in Swansea. A lake, a river, and a pond are our natural boundaries. The terrain is hilly, with ravines, and the roads are winding with many mature trees.

Our Ratepayer's Association ( Swansea ) put it this way,

"Endeavouring to maintain the cultural, environmental, and political health of the community."


City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended (Office Consolidation)
View attachment 88297View attachment 88298

Sounds like bliss!

 

[Cloud Cover]

And it's your type of neighbourhood that developers covet, and developers influence politicians whether we like to admit it or not. There are 'urbanists' who argue that a detached SFH should not exist in the core city.

Why the war on the Canadian dream. It just makes no sense!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why the war on the Canadian dream. It just makes no sense!

Political power, and the disapproval that the peons might be enjoying life without permission.

 

[dimsum]

it could but it generally doesn't. Developers are squeezing in as many units as they can possibly manage. The new Glendale development in St. Catharines for example wants to put 23 stories on the flight path into the airport and has applied for an exemption that far exceeds the local limits. Builders pay compensation in lieu of putting in parks and playgrounds. Guess what, recent studies have revealed that kids that don't get outside to play and run around outside of recess are further behind the learning curve than those who do. Kids that don't progress end up producing generational poverty as you put it. Give high density some time and crime rates will increase. And perhaps birthrates have decreased partially because it is hard to want to raise children when the view out the bedroom window is your neighbour's adjacent brick wall less than 8 feet away and the backyard consists of an 12X12 artificial cedar deck and a similar sized area of burnt grass/dandelions.

Asian cities like Tokyo and Hong Kong, minus the birth rate thing, would disagree.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Asian cities like Tokyo and Hong Kong, minus the birth rate thing, would disagree.

Singapore and Dubai are the gold standard, no?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Asian cities like Tokyo and Hong Kong, minus the birth rate thing, would disagree.

I know that you know, but, different cultural contexts.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Japanese have been living with limited privacy for centuries. Us, not so much.

I'm certain we don't want to emulate collapsing Asian birth rates.

 

[lenaitch]

Political power, and the disapproval that the peons might be enjoying life without permission.

I'm not so sure. The Premier, and I assume a very large part of his Cabinet, live in SFHs, but he's under a lot of pressure to create housing, is friendly with developers and likes to micro-manage municipal councils. His brother didn't get to achieve his legacy with Toronto (well, he established a legacy - just the wrong one) so he has tried to finish the job.

I might be giving him too much (dis) credit. A lot of what comes out of his office likely comes from his political staffers.

His latest foray into tunnelling under Hwy 401 is bizarre, even for him.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Japanese have been living with limited privacy for centuries. Us, not so much.

I'm certain we don't want to emulate collapsing Asian birth rates.

We have the collapsing Asian birth rates already. Canada hasn’t had a replacement rate since 1972. The only difference between us and them is we bring in immigrants to offset the lack of births. If we didn’t we would be in the exact same boat.

 

[dimsum]

I know that you know, but, different cultural contexts.

Fair, but that is still an example that higher density living =/= worse outcomes.

I guess other examples could be city centres in the Netherlands, etc - not necessarily Amsterdam or Paris or London.

But about going outside and playing - even in downtown Toronto, community parks are still a thing and very popular (not just by the homeless crowd). A bunch of my friends, with kids, live in higher-density living and go to the parks regularly.