- Reaction score
- 2,797
- Points
- 1,040
Could have avoided a lot of the problems by just denying the permits to build these unlivable condos.
Minimum standards as to size and living conditions should be set higher to begin with.
Cost of housing in Canada
- Thread starter mariomike
- Start date
Minimum standards as to size and living conditions should be set higher to begin with.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,206
- Points
- 1,040
Governments want more people living in smaller spaces at higher densities. Nothing about what has been permitted so far was by mistake.
Development fees are a consequence of municipalities exhausting their traditional tax bases.
Development fees are a consequence of municipalities exhausting their traditional tax bases.
- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,140
Depends on what you call "liveable". I had a 450 sq ft apartment at one time that had a full kitchen, and was perfect for a single person living alone. No wasted space, and everything a single person needed. That said, I wasn't paying a premium for the privilege of having no extra space.
I know people with full kitchens that only microwave or air fry their food, so not having a full kitchen wouldn't change their lifestyle.
The problem with the "unliveable" condos in Toronto, Vancouver, etc., isn't necessarily the size, it's the cost for the unit size you're getting. That's why people aren't buying them.
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Points
- 1,160
As did I, but if municipalities are approving buildings full of nothing but, they they are not meeting the needs of much of their population of couples and, in particular, families. When your housing market is primarily suitable for singles only, you're not building residences, you're building dorms.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,251
- Points
- 1,160
Left wing government policy, and what will solve the housing crisis, are not quite the same thing.
But, of course, big government knows best, right?
Homebuilding alone won’t solve Canada’s housing crisis
Clearly, because any conceivable boost in homebuilding won’t, on its own, resolve the housing affordability crisis, the federal government must get serious about the other two parts of the equation: immigration policy, which drives housing demand, and economic policy, which affects the incomes of Canadians.
Canada’s population growth, which is almost entirely driven by federal immigration policy, has overwhelmed housing supply. Federal immigration targets remain historically high despite lackluster homebuilding. This imbalance contributes to rising home prices and rents. To improve housing affordability, the government must better align the number of new immigrants with the country’s capacity to build new homes. The government can also prioritize immigrants with homebuilding skills.
Housing affordability isn’t just about prices—it’s also about income. If take-home pay rises faster than house prices and rent, Canadians will get ahead. But over the past two decades, the opposite has happened—after-tax incomes have barely increased while housing costs have soared.
To help promote economic growth and substantially raise incomes for Canadian workers, the Carney government should streamline regulations and remove barriers to resource development. The government should also lower taxes on personal and business income, and reform capital gains taxes, to make Canada more attractive to investment and high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs that create jobs and opportunity. And the government should rein in spending and borrowing, which crowd out private investment and hamper the economy.
Canada must build more homes. But to help meaningfully improve housing affordability, the Carney government must also better align immigration policy with housing capacity, grow the economy and reduce taxes.
Homebuilding alone won’t solve Canada’s housing crisis
Federal immigration targets remain historically high despite lackluster homebuilding.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,624
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,922
- Points
- 1,260
8 September, 2025
Ottawa community wins anti-sidewalk campaign.
"Don't pave paradise."
Ottawa community wins anti-sidewalk campaign.
"Don't pave paradise."
- Reaction score
- 15,213
- Points
- 1,160
Plus they need the densification to justify their transit obsession. Don't worry though they will boost taxes and utilities to make up for their shortfalls.
- Reaction score
- 1,922
- Points
- 1,260
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,206
- Points
- 1,040
I never caught a respiratory infection from myself in my own car. Those walking dripping sneezing vectors on Skytrain, though...
The problem with subsidized transit is that expansion usually amounts to adding increasing numbers of decreasingly profitable routes. Total subsidization has to increase and squeezes out other spending.
The problem with subsidized transit is that expansion usually amounts to adding increasing numbers of decreasingly profitable routes. Total subsidization has to increase and squeezes out other spending.
- Reaction score
- 15,213
- Points
- 1,160
If it was not for the ICE car drivers, our tranist system here would collapse. They can't exist without the fuel tax funding them. It only broke even for a few ye
Currently they are doing a big expansion of skytrain. The problem is that Skytrain is very good at moving a lot of people from one hub to another. But it is likley the future demand by university students is going to drop and with the advent of WFH, the demand for tranist to downtown cores is dropping.
The only time tranist here came close to self sustaining, was for a few years, just before covid, with no major projects and most buses running at full capacity. Now they have major projects and less demand for traditional work hubs. The advantage of diesel powered buses is they can have their routes altered to meet adjustments in demand. But they are HR intensive and it's is labour costs that limit expansion of bus service. The one advantage of skytrain is there is less labour cost per passenger, but much more capital and loan costs that must be paid.
Transit here in the Lower mainland depends heavily on the revenue from fuel taxes and parking. Very little of the fuel tax goes to actual road repair and almost all goes to tranist ops and big projects.
Currently they are doing a big expansion of skytrain. The problem is that Skytrain is very good at moving a lot of people from one hub to another. But it is likley the future demand by university students is going to drop and with the advent of WFH, the demand for tranist to downtown cores is dropping.
The only time tranist here came close to self sustaining, was for a few years, just before covid, with no major projects and most buses running at full capacity. Now they have major projects and less demand for traditional work hubs. The advantage of diesel powered buses is they can have their routes altered to meet adjustments in demand. But they are HR intensive and it's is labour costs that limit expansion of bus service. The one advantage of skytrain is there is less labour cost per passenger, but much more capital and loan costs that must be paid.
Similar threads
