Cost of housing in Canada

[Weinie]

Granted.

The very issues we're discussing (dependence on cars, cost of housing in certain areas, parking spaces that cost more than houses) represent a set of said unforeseen (and undesirable) consequences. Exclusionary zoning (housing density), exclusionary zoning (barring commercial and mixed used use from residential areas), sprawling suburbs, shitty transit options, gridlocked streets.

To some the status quo is an abomination, and the 15 minute city represents very literal utopic goal to be brought about.

To some the status quo is the natural order of things, and the 15 minute city represents a perverse attempt at destroying our way of life though forceful government manipulation.


In my opinion both are wrong. Realistically, 15 minute city simply represents a shift how municipalities are going to try to do things at the local level, which will result incremental attempts to unwind the unforeseen and undesirable consequences from the past planners of para 1.

I'm leaning towards the economic market to sort things out. Government intervention rarely goes well.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm leaning towards the economic market to sort things out. Government intervention rarely goes well.

It's not government intervention into a previously free market. It's municipal governments changing the philosophies by which they make decisions within a certain area of their jurisdiction.

There is no mechanism for the economic market to re-write zoning bylaws, county plans, etc.

 

[Good2Golf]

There is no mechanism for the economic market to re-write zoning bylaws, county plans, etc.

Perhaps it is you over whom The Point has flown?

The economic market results in people moving from one municipality to another where their financial position is better than before. Such a person/family moving due to economic factors has very much “REWRITTEN” they’re applicable by-laws, development plans, etc. for their particular situation.

You are looking at things through the Governments’ respective lenses. So your words ring true for you.

Others (such as Weinie, etc.) are looking at things through a personal lens, hence why their views are different.

 

[Weinie]

It's not government intervention into a previously free market. It's municipal governments changing the philosophies by which they make decisions within a certain area of their jurisdiction.

There is no mechanism for the economic market to re-write zoning bylaws, county plans, etc.

It's the economy (spurred by demographics), at all levels, which (mostly) drive decisions, at all levels.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It's the economy (spurred by demographics), at all levels, which drive decisions, at all levels.

So then the shift in urban planning best practice from previous suburban models towards 15 minutes city models must be economically driven then yes?

 

[IKnowNothing]

The economic market results in people moving from one municipality to another where their financial position is better than before. Such a person/family moving due to economic factors has very much “REWRITTEN” they’re applicable by-laws, development plans, etc. for their particular situation.

You are looking at things through the Governments’ respective lenses. So your words ring true for you.

Others (such as Weinie, etc.) are looking at things through a personal lens, hence why their views are different.

I'm looking at things from the lens of understanding that municipal/provincial planning has and will continue to shape what is built, where, by what rules, and connected with/supported by what infrastructure.

 

[mariomike]

Most kids are now bused, at least where we live.

We walked, never took a bus or car ride, to Junior, Middle and High school.

Our neighbourhood was officially a Village until 1967, and still has a community run Town Hall with the smallest public library banch in the city.

We don't have consistent elevation levels. Our streets are not straight or even. They follow paths of green and open space. Very winding with steep hill sides and ravines. Some streets have sidewalks. Ours does not. The Humber River, Grenadier Pond, Rennie Pond, Catfish Pond and Lake Ontario are the natural boundaries. Directly beside these bodies of water tends to be a lot of open space, allowing for wildlife to thrive and also keeps the residential area a safe distance away in case of a flood, or other natural disaster.

As far as urban planning goes, people can call it NIMBYism. But, our home-owner association is pretty focused on protecting quality of life and property values.

 

[Weinie]

So then the shift in urban planning best practice from previous suburban models towards 15 minutes city models must be economically driven then yes?

Until biases/agendas intrude

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm looking at things from the lens of understanding that municipal/provincial planning has and will continue to shape what is built, where, by what rules, and connected with/supported by what infrastructure.

Which in no way invalidates individuals and families making financially-based decisions that may give them cause to DECA to adjust their municipal situation on a timescale far more agile than the long-term municipal policy shaping to which you refer.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Which in no way invalidates individuals and families making financially-based decisions that may give them cause to DECA to adjust their municipal situation on a timescale far more agile than the long-term municipal policy shaping to which you refer.

But this individual level decision making has much relevance to the overarching discussion as what Weinie had for lunch today, and in no way have I argued against individuals maintaining the ability to make those decisions.

The overall current state of urban design in Canada is a result of long term planning policy
15 minute cities represent a shift in the philosophy of said long term planning policy

Weinie and Brad were arguing that a shift in long term planning policy is government intervention and that they'd prefer to see the state of Urban design in Canada fixed via the economic market- which doesn't make any sense because the economic market as it pertains to real estate and development occurs within the confines of long term planning policy, not independent of it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So then the shift in urban planning best practice from previous suburban models towards 15 minutes city models must be economically driven then yes?

Why would you assume that? Why would you not allow the possibility of people driven by purely academic/ideological motivations?

 

[Good2Golf]

But this individual level decision making has much relevance to the overarching discussion as what Weinie had for lunch today, and in no way have I argued against individuals maintaining the ability to make those decisions.

The overall current state of urban design in Canada is a result of long term planning policy
15 minute cities represent a shift in the philosophy of said long term planning policy

Weinie and Brad were arguing that a shift in long term planning policy is government intervention and that they'd prefer to see the state of Urban design in Canada fixed via the economic market- which doesn't make any sense because the economic market as it pertains to real estate and development occurs within the confines of long term planning policy, not independent of it.

At the very least, such governmentally-driven planning needs to have greater consideration given to economic factors, not just the nirvanic/aspirational make the world a more resonant place to live…

 

[IKnowNothing]

Why would you assume that? Why would you not allow the possibility of people driven by purely academic/ideological motivations?

I don't assume that. I challenged the poster to carry their own rationale through to its natural conclusion.
But of course, their post was quickly edited to allow with the caveat enabling the "things I don't agree with don't count" carveout

 

[IKnowNothing]

At the very least, such governmentally-driven planning needs to have greater consideration given to economic factors, not just the nirvanic/aspirational make the world a more resonant place to live…

Economic factors like time/money lost in commute, excess capital infrastructure investment, price pressure on land, etc?

 

[Brad Sallows]

But this individual level decision making has much relevance to the overarching discussion as what Weinie had for lunch today, and in no way have I argued against individuals maintaining the ability to make those decisions.

The overall current state of urban design in Canada is a result of long term planning policy
15 minute cities represent a shift in the philosophy of said long term planning policy

Weinie and Brad were arguing that a shift in long term planning policy is government intervention and that they'd prefer to see the state of Urban design in Canada fixed via the economic market- which doesn't make any sense because the economic market as it pertains to real estate and development occurs within the confines of long term planning policy, not independent of it.

What people want is highly relevant. Planners can try to nudge people along, or even foreclose options in attempts to channel behaviour. And people can still find ways to opt out. Worst case, money spent becomes a sunk cost with nowhere near the anticipated benefits. Example: a lane of traffic conceded to bicyclists which bears a tiny fraction of its former human traffic.

Obviously anything government does that meddles with what people do is government intervention. Much of what government does is intervention aimed at changing the way people behave. The fact that people are working within and around earlier intervention doesn't mean that change now is not more intervention.

The people are multitudes, and they can not insulate themselves from failure the way governments and planners can. So there are thousands of trials of ideas, and failures become evident and are discarded quickly. Governments can only try a very, very few things (and often enough just pick one for ideological/political/social aesthetic preferences and stick to it) and are terrible at cutting losses.

It's easy enough to predict what happens. A set of objectives are identified; some initiatives are undertaken to achieve the aims. The value of the intended objectives are accounted, as are whatever aims are achieved. The opportunity costs are never measured and probably not even considered; the unforeseen consequences and shortcomings are blamed on "market failure".

An example of what planners and politicians do: City of Kamloops will (apparently) spend $5 million (matched by BC for $5 million more, if I understand) to construct a pedestrian overpass about one-half block from a major intersection with pedestrian controls. This would be for the benefit of a few hundred students, most of whom are unlikely to ever be Kamloops taxpayers, living across the road from TRU. If that's the best they can do, they ought to just turn the money back to the province and to the municipal taxpayers. They aren't even trying to be smart.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Supply, meet demand....

Imbalance between new homes and new residents escalating unaffordability in B.C.​

​

Even if the number of non-permanent residents in B.C. retreats from the current sky-high levels and interprovincial outflows accelerate over the next couple of years, the reality is that total in-migration will continue to outstrip new home construction by historic margins, while also adding to the pressures on public sector and other infrastructure services.

The ratio of total in-migration to new B.C. home completions has been remarkably stable over the past three decades – until recently.

Since 1991, total in-migration from all sources has averaged 56,000 while new home completions have averaged 28,000.

Even as the mix of permanent immigrants, net-non permanent residents and net interprovincial migrants changed over time, this ratio didn’t shift much, remaining anchored around 2:1.

But since 2017, it has stayed above its long term-average every year apart from 2021, when the pandemic resulted in a sharp fall in international migration.

Between 2000 and 2016, the ratio of net in-migration to home completions exceeded 2:1 on just five occasions – and never for more than two consecutive years.

But since 2017, the ratio has consistently exceeded the long-term average (six of seven years) and in 2023 reached a previously unheard of 4.4:1.

Imbalance between new homes and new residents escalating unaffordability in B.C.

Growing wedge between the number of new homes being built in B.C. and population growth fuelled by surging in-migration is playing a starring role in the larger housing market story, according to BCBC economists

biv.com

 

[OldSolduer]

What's your definition of huge? Typical family of 2 kids would comfortably need a 4-5 bedroom dwelling especially when the kids are teens. The 4 of us went from a 1 bedroom apartment, to a 3 bed duplex to finally a 5 bedroom house. Things were way cheaper back then though. It's not the couples fault for wanting the same space for themselves and their kids that they had growing up. You can still get a 5 bedroom "huge" house for sub $400k in this country.

Definition of huge - I am sure my definition will be different from others. Our home is just under 1100 square feet. You could house a family of four but in this day and age it would be tight, considering societal changes.
Huge to me is about 2500 + square feet....for a couple that is huge. Family of 4 not as much.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Definition of huge - I am sure my definition will be different from others. Our home is just under 1100 square feet. You could house a family of four but in this day and age it would be tight, considering societal changes.
Huge to me is about 2500 + square feet....for a couple that is huge. Family of 4 not as much.

The 2500 sq ft houses as much as I generally hate them make sense in some regards from the change in social dynamics. People spend much less time out and about, the home has become your outside. Add in all the work from home requirements and now you also need office space within your home.

One of my family members has a home with likely about 3000sqft of space for 3 people. It made sense when they had the 4 kids, but after 3 of those kids left its now mostly unused poorly maintained space. Don’t you dare mention to them the idea of downsizing though.

 

[Quirky]

People live in huge houses for the same reasons they drive trucks that are never used for their intended purposes. Maybe once these over-leveraged mortgages come up for renewal things will be a lot harder to afford.

 

[RangerRay]

What people want is highly relevant. Planners can try to nudge people along, or even foreclose options in attempts to channel behaviour. And people can still find ways to opt out. Worst case, money spent becomes a sunk cost with nowhere near the anticipated benefits. Example: a lane of traffic conceded to bicyclists which bears a tiny fraction of its former human traffic.

Obviously anything government does that meddles with what people do is government intervention. Much of what government does is intervention aimed at changing the way people behave. The fact that people are working within and around earlier intervention doesn't mean that change now is not more intervention.

The people are multitudes, and they can not insulate themselves from failure the way governments and planners can. So there are thousands of trials of ideas, and failures become evident and are discarded quickly. Governments can only try a very, very few things (and often enough just pick one for ideological/political/social aesthetic preferences and stick to it) and are terrible at cutting losses.

It's easy enough to predict what happens. A set of objectives are identified; some initiatives are undertaken to achieve the aims. The value of the intended objectives are accounted, as are whatever aims are achieved. The opportunity costs are never measured and probably not even considered; the unforeseen consequences and shortcomings are blamed on "market failure".

An example of what planners and politicians do: City of Kamloops will (apparently) spend $5 million (matched by BC for $5 million more, if I understand) to construct a pedestrian overpass about one-half block from a major intersection with pedestrian controls. This would be for the benefit of a few hundred students, most of whom are unlikely to ever be Kamloops taxpayers, living across the road from TRU. If that's the best they can do, they ought to just turn the money back to the province and to the municipal taxpayers. They aren't even trying to be smart.

Oh my god! I can’t believe they’re doing that! Lazy-ass students were jaywalking in that spot 25-30 years ago when I was going there!