Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Straw man. Point out exactly where I said we shouldn’t add supply at all, and I’ll retract it.
To reiterate: more housing is fine; more housing targeted at people who need it the most is even better. Burnaby isn’t doing the second one. If anything, they’ve done the opposite.
|
I think we are mostly in agreement (my first comment quoted you, but was meant in support of your post, not as an argument).
But filtering is real, any new housing supply will work its way towards benefitting those who most need it, even if they are not the purchasers of the units created and even if they do not rent those units, all that is required is that the units not be left empty.
A benefit of upzoning the single-elderly-couple-dwelling (SECD) zones (as opposed to new condo construction) is that many of those houses already get replaced with McMansions- with upzoning, that process could generate lots more units without requiring much more in the way of scarce construction resources. Also, the SECD zones cover many of the nicest, quiet, tree-lined streets away from traffic and close to schools that make ideal places to live, as opposed to building condo projects, say, bordering Highway 1, North Road and the CN mainline plus railyard, just to pick one example.
Public housing construction is good as well, but primarily because it creates secure rentals and adds to overall supply, not because there is some benefit of building low quality structures so that they can be directly occupied by poor people, as opposed to constantly adding new high end housing stock, and letting what used to be the best housing filter its way down the economic ladder.
Prev
Linear Mode
